Arnobius, writing about 300 A. D., gives a somewhat different account

of Simon’s mode of flight and fall. He says that the people of Rome

“saw the chariot of Simon Magus and his four fiery horses blown away

by the mouth of Peter and vanish at the name of Christ. They saw, I

say, him who had trusted false gods and been betrayed by them in their

fright precipitated by his own weight and lying with broken legs.

Then, after he had been carried to Brunda, worn out by his shame and

sufferings, he again hurled himself down from the highest ridge of the

roof.”[1845] Cyril of Jerusalem, 315-386 A. D., also speaks of Simon’s

being borne in air in the chariot of demons, “and is not surprised

that the combined prayers of Peter and Paul brought him down, since

in addition to Jesus’s promise to answer the petition of two or three

gathered together it is to be remembered that Peter carried the keys

of heaven and that Paul had been rapt to the third heaven and heard

secret words.”[1846] Philastrius, another writer of the fourth century,

describes Simon’s death more vaguely, stating that after Peter had

driven him from Jerusalem he came to Rome where they engaged in another

contest before Nero. Simon was worsted by Peter on every point of

argument, and, “smitten by an angel died a merited death in order that

the falsity of his magic might be evident to all men.”[1847] But it

is hardly worth while to pile up such brief allusions to Simon in the

writings of the fathers.[1848]

[Sidenote: Apocryphal _Acts of Peter and Paul_.]

Other fuller accounts of Simon’s doings at Rome are contained in the

Syriac _Teaching of Simon Cephas_[1849] and in the apocryphal _Acts of

Peter and Paul_.[1850] In the former Peter urges the people of Rome

not to allow the sorcerer Simon to delude them by semblances which

are not realities, and he raises a dead man to life after Simon has

failed to do so. In the latter work Simon opposes Peter and Paul in

the presence of Nero and as usual they charge one another with being

magicians. Simon also as usual affirms that he is Christ, and we are

told that the chief priests had called Jesus a wizard. Simon had

already made a great impression upon Nero by causing brazen serpents

to move and stone statues to laugh, and by altering both his face and

stature and changing first to a child and then to an old man. Nero

also asserts that Simon has raised a dead man and that Simon himself

rose on the third day after being beheaded. It is later explained,

however, that Simon had arranged to have the beheading take place in a

dark corner and through his magic had substituted a ram for himself.

The ram appeared to be Simon until after it had been decapitated, when

the executioner discovered that the head was that of a ram but did not

dare report the fact to Nero. When Simon met the apostles in Nero’s

presence, he caused great dogs to rush suddenly at Peter, but Peter

made them vanish into air by showing them some bread which he had been

secretly blessing and breaking. As a final test Simon promised to

ascend to heaven if Nero would build him a tower in the Campus Martius,

where “my angels may find me in the air, for they cannot come to me

upon earth among sinners.” The tower was duly provided, and Simon,

crowned with laurel, began to fly successfully until Peter, tearfully

entreated by Paul to make haste, adjured the angels of Satan who were

supporting Simon to let him drop. Simon then fell upon the _Sacra Via_

and his body was broken into four parts.[1851] Nero, however, chose to

regard the apostles as Simon’s murderers and put them to death, after

which a Marcellus, who had been Simon’s disciple but left him to join

Peter, secretly buried Peter’s body.

[Sidenote: An account ascribed to Marcellus.]

To this Marcellus is ascribed a very similar narrative which is found

in an early medieval manuscript and was perhaps written in the seventh

or eighth century.[1852] Fabricius and Florentinus give its title as,

_Of the marvelous deeds and acts of the blessed Peter and Paul and of

Simon’s magic arts_.[1853] I have read it in a Latin pamphlet printed

at some time before 1500, where the full title runs: _The Passion of

the Apostles Peter and Paul, and their disputation before the emperor

Nero against Simon, a certain magician, who, when he saw that he could

not resist the utterances of St. Peter, cast all his books of magic

into the sea lest he be adjudged a magician. Then when the same Simon

Magus presumed to ascend to heaven, overcome by St. Peter he fell to

earth and perished most miserably._ At its close occurs the statement,

“I, Marcellus, a disciple of my lord, the apostle Peter, have written

what I saw.” When this Marcellus began to desert his former master,

Simon, to follow Peter, Simon procured a big dog to keep Peter away

from Marcellus, but at Peter’s order the dog turned upon Simon himself.

Peter then humanely forbade the beast to do Simon any serious bodily

injury, but the dog tore the magician’s clothing off his back, and

Simon was chased from town by the mob and did not venture to return

until after a year’s time.[1854]

[Sidenote: Hegesippus.]

A chapter is devoted to Simon Magus in the _History of the Jewish War_

of the so-called Hegesippus, a name which is thought to be a corruption

of Josephus, since the work in large measure reproduces that historian.

At any rate it was not written until the fourth century and is probably

a translation or adaptation by Ambrose. Its account of Simon Magus

combines the story of his competition with Peter in raising the dead,

“for in such works Peter was held most celebrated,” with that of his

flight and fall. He is represented as launching his flight from the

Capitoline Hill and leaping off the Tarpeian rock. The people marveled

at his flight, some remarking that Christ had never performed such

a feat as this. But when Peter prayed against him, “straightway his

propeller was tangled up in Peter’s voice, and he fell, nor was he

killed, but, weakened by a broken leg, withdrew to Aricia and died

there.”[1855]

[Sidenote: A sermon on Simon’s fall.]

Finally, passing over other Latin accounts of the contest between the

apostles and Simon Magus to be found in the _Apostolic Histories_ of

the Pseudo-Abdias[1856] and in a work ascribed to Pope Linus,[1857] we

may note a sermon which has been variously ascribed in the manuscripts

and printed editions to Augustine, Ambrose, and Maximus.[1858] This

sermon, intended for the anniversary of the day of martyrdom of Peter

and Paul, proceeds to inquire the cause of their death and finds it in

the fact that among other marvels they “prostrated by their prayers

that magician Simon in a headlong fall from the empty air. For when the

same Simon called himself Christ and asserted that as the Son he could

ascend unto the Father by flying, and, suddenly raised up by magic

arts, began to fly, then Peter on his knees prayed the Lord, and by

sacred prayer overcame the magical levitation. For the prayer ascended

to the Lord before the flier, and the just petition arrived ere the

iniquitous presumption. Peter, I say, though placed on the ground,

obtained what he sought before Simon reached the heaven towards which

he was tending. So then Peter brought him down like a captive from high

in air, and, falling precipitately upon a rock, he broke his legs. And

this in contumely of his feat, so that he who just before had tried to

fly, of a sudden could not even walk, and he who had assumed wings lost

even his feet. But lest it appear strange that, while the apostle was

present, that magician should fly through the air even for a while, let

it be explained that this was due to Peter’s patience. For he let him

soar the higher in order that he might fall the farther; for he wished

him to be carried aloft where everyone could see him, in order that all

might see him when he fell from on high.” The preacher then draws the

moral that pride goes before a fall.

[Sidenote: Simon Magus in medieval art.]

The struggle of Peter and Paul with Simon Magus at Rome appears in

_The Golden Legend_, compiled by Jacopo de Voragine in the thirteenth

century, and was likewise a favorite theme of Gothic stained glass.

At Chartres and Angers Peter may be seen routing Simon’s dogs by

blessing bread; at Bourges and Lyons Simon and Peter compete in raising

the dead; while windows at Chartres, Bourges, Tours, Reims, and

Poitiers show the apostles praying and Simon falling and breaking his

neck.[1859] This last scene and also the disputation before Nero are

represented in the earlier mosaics of the eleventh or twelfth century

which the Norman rulers of Sicily had executed in the cathedral of

Monreale and the royal chapel of their castle at Palermo.[1860]

CHAPTER XVIII

THE CONFESSION OF CYPRIAN AND SOME SIMILAR STORIES

The _Confession_ of Cyprian—His initiation into mysteries—His thorough

study of nature, divination, and magic—The lore of Egypt—And of

Chaldea—Cyprian’s practice of magic at Antioch—A Christian virgin

defeats the magic of the demons—Summary of Cyprian’s picture of

magic—Christians accused of magic—A story from Epiphanius—Joseph’s

experience of miracle and magic—Legend of St. James and Hermogenes

the magician—Other contests of apostles and magicians in _The Golden

Legend_.

[Sidenote: The _Confession_ of Cyprian.]

To the accounts of the contests of Peter and Paul with Simon Magus

which were recorded in our last chapter we shall add in this some other

encounters of early Christians with magicians, and to the picture of

magic contained in the Pseudo-Clementines that presented by Cyprian in

his _Confession_. If Simon Magus died impenitent in the midst of his

magic, very different was the end of Cyprian, a magician by profession

in the third century, who, after being educated from childhood in

heathen mysteries and the magic art, repented and was baptized, became

bishop of Antioch, and finally achieved a martyr’s crown. In the

_Confession_[1861] current under his name and which most critics agree

was composed before the time of Constantine[1862] is described his

education in and subsequent practice of magic. For us perhaps the most

interesting feature of his account of his education is the association

of magic, not only with pagan mysteries and the operations of demons,

but also with natural science.

[Sidenote: His initiation into mysteries.]

“I am Cyprian,” says the author, “who from a tender age was consecrated

a gift to Apollo and while yet a child was initiated into the arts of

the dragon.” When not yet seven years old, he entered the mysteries of

Mithra, and at ten his parents enrolled him a citizen at Athens, and

he carried a torch in the mysteries of Demeter and “ministered to the

dragon on the citadel of Pallas.” When not yet fifteen, he also visited

Mount Olympus for forty days, and “was initiated into sonorous speeches

and noisy narrations.”[1863] There he saw in phantasy trees and herbs

which seemed to be moved by the presence of the gods, spirits who

regulated the passage of time, and choruses of demons who sang, while

others waged war or plotted, deceived, and permeated.[1864] He saw the

phalanx of each god and goddess, and how from Mount Olympus as from a

palace spirits were despatched to every nation of the earth. He was fed

only after sunset and upon fruits, and was taught the efficacy of each

of them by seven hierophants.

[Sidenote: His thorough study of nature, divination, and magic.]

Cyprian’s parents were determined that he should learn whatever there

was in earth and air and sea, and not merely the natural generation

and corruption of herbs and trees and bodies, but also the virtues

implanted in all these, which the prince of this world impressed upon

them in order that he might oppose the divine constitution. Cyprian

also participated at Argos in the sacred rites of Hera, and saw the

union of air with ether and of ether with air, also of earth with

water, and water with air. He penetrated the Troad and to Artemis

Tauropolos who is at Lacedaemon to learn how matter was confused and

divided “and the profundities of sinister and cruel legends.” From the

Phrygians he learned liver divination; among the barbarians he studied

auspices and the significance of the movements of quadrupeds, and how

to interpret omens and the language of birds, and the sounds made by

every kind of wood and stone, or by the dead in tombs and the creaking

of doors. He became acquainted with the palpitations of the limbs,

the movement of the blood and pulse in bodies, all the extensions

and corollaries of ratios and numbers, diseases simulated as well as

natural, “and oaths which are heard yet are not audible, and pacts for

discord.” There was, in fine, nothing whatever in earth or sea or air

that he did not know, whether it was a matter of science or phantasy,

of mechanics or artifice, “even down to the magic translation of

writings and other things of that sort.”

[Sidenote: The lore of Egypt.]

At twenty Cyprian was admitted to the shrines at ancient Memphis in

Egypt and learned what communication and relationship existed between

demons and earthly things and “in what stars and laws and objects they

delight.” He witnessed imitations of earthquakes, rain, and storms

at sea. He saw the souls of giants held in darkness and fancied that

they sustained the earth as a load on their shoulders. He saw the

communications of serpents with demons, ideas of transfigurations,

impious piety, science without reason, iniquitous justice, and

things topsy-turvy generally. Besides the forms of various sins and

vices, such as fornication and avarice, which suggest the medieval

personification of the seven deadly sins, he saw the three hundred

and sixty-five varieties of ailments, “and the empty glory and the

empty virtue” with which the priests of Egypt had deceived the Greek

philosophers.

[Sidenote: And of Chaldea.]

At thirty Cyprian left Egypt for Chaldea in order to acquire its

lore concerning air, fire, and light. Here he was instructed in the

qualities of stars as well as of herbs, and their “choruses like

drawn-up battle lines.” He was taught the house and relationships of

each star and its appropriate food and drink. Also the meetings of

spirits with men in light, the three hundred and sixty-five demons who

divide as many parts of the ether between them, and the sacrifices,

libations, and words appropriate to each. Cyprian’s education had now

advanced to such a point that the devil himself hailed him, mere youth

as he was, as a new Jambres, a skilful and reliable practitioner, and

worthy of communication with himself. Cyprian again explains at this

point that in all the stars and plants and other works of God the devil

has bound to himself likenesses in preparation to wage war with God

and His angels, but these likenesses are shadowy images, not solid

substances. The devil’s rain is not water, his fire does not burn, his

fish are not food, and his gold is not genuine. The devil obtains the

material for his products from the vapors of sacrifices.

[Sidenote: Cyprian’s practice of magic at Antioch.]

Cyprian now returned from Chaldea and wrought marvels at Antioch “like

one of the ancients,” and “made many experiments of magic and became

celebrated as a magician and philosopher endowed with vast knowledge

of things invisible.” Men came to him to be taught magic or to secure

their ends by his assistance. And he easily helped them all, some to

the gratification of pleasure, others to triumph over their adversaries

or even to slay their rivals. His conscience sometimes pricked him at

the evil deeds which he thus wrought with the aid of demons, but as yet

he did not doubt that the devil was all powerful.

[Sidenote: A Christian virgin defeats the magic of the demons.]

But then the case of the Christian girl Justina revealed to him the

weakness and fraud of the devil. Determined to dedicate herself to a

life of virginity, Justina repulsed the love of the youth Aglaïdes, who

sought Cyprian’s assistance. But in vain: the demon failed to alter

Justina’s determination and was not even able to give another girl the

form of Justina and so deceive Aglaïdes. Justina was shown the form of

her lover, but she called upon the Virgin, and the devil was forced to

vanish in smoke. Nor did disease and other plagues and torments affect

her resolution. Her parents, however, were similarly afflicted until

they besought her to marry Aglaïdes, but instead she cured them of

their ailments by the sign of the cross. The devil then inflicted a

plague on the entire community and delivered an oracle to the effect

that the pest could be stayed only by the marriage of Justina and

Aglaïdes, but her prayers turned the wrath of the public from herself

against Cyprian. When the magician in disgust cursed the demon for the

evil pass to which he had thus brought him, the demon made a ferocious

attack upon him, from which Cyprian saved himself just in the nick of

time by calling upon God for aid and making the sign of the cross. He

then publicly confessed his crimes as a magician, burned his books of

magic, and was baptized into the Christian faith.[1865]

[Sidenote: Summary of Cyprian’s picture of magic.]

Cyprian’s _Confession_ thus represents magic as a very elaborate art,

requiring long study and a thorough knowledge of natural objects and

processes. The magician has his books, and he must also be able to read

the book of nature. Astrology and other arts of divination are integral

parts of magic. But magic is also represented as the work of evil

spirits. This involves not merely a Neo-Platonic sort of association of

demons with natural forces and regions of earth or sky, but also the

specific association of the devil for evil purposes with objects in

nature, a doctrine which we shall find again in the works of a medieval

saint, Hildegard of Bingen. Furthermore, magic aids in the commission

of crime and is dangerous even to the magician against whom the devil

may turn. While magic involves study of nature and use of natural

forces and associations, and we also hear of “many experiments of

magic,” it is scarcely represented as operating scientifically in the

_Confession_. It is mystic, confused, shadowy, imitative, imaginary,

lacking in solidity and reality, fraudulent and deceptive. Finally,

this complex art, this universal system of knowledge, is easily balked

and overthrown by the far simpler counter-magic of Christianity, by

such methods as a prayer to the Virgin, calling on the name of God, or

merely making the sign of the cross.

[Sidenote: Christians accused of magic.]

Such counter-magic was apt to be regarded as magic by the pagans, and

the account of the martyrdom of Cyprian states that the devil, that

“very bad serpent,” suggested to the Count of the Orient that Cyprian,

together with a certain virgin who is assumed to be Justina, was

destroying the ancient worship of the gods by his magic tricks as well

as stirring up the orient and the whole world by his epistles. He was

accordingly arrested and finally beheaded. According to one account

he and Justina were first placed together in a cauldron of tallow and

pitch over a fire. But when they sang a hymn, the flames left them

uninjured and instead shot out and caused the death of an unreformed

magician who happened to be standing near by.[1866] Another case of

Christian martyrs who were probably accused of magic is found in Spain

about 287 A. D. Two Christian sisters who were dealers in pottery

refused to sell their earthenware for purposes of pagan worship. One

day, as a pagan religious procession passed by their shop, the crowd

trampled upon their wares which were exposed for sale. But thereupon

the idol which was being borne in the procession fell and broke in

pieces. “Being probably suspected of magical practices,” the two

sisters were arrested; one died in prison and the other was strangled;

whereupon the bishop rescued their bones, and these were cherished as

the remains of martyrs.[1867]

[Sidenote: A story from Epiphanius.]

Epiphanius in the next century tells a story similar to that of

Cyprian, Aglaïdes, and Justina, of a youth who was led astray by evil

companions who employed magic arts, love philters, and incantations

to force free women to gratify their licentious desires. By means of

magic the youth went through the air to a very beautiful woman in the

public bath, but she repelled him by making the sign of the cross.

His companions then tried to devise some more powerful magic for his

benefit, and took him at sunset to a cemetery full of caves where for

three successive nights the wizards vainly plied their arts in the

attempt to gratify his lust. But in every instance they were foiled by

the name of Christ and the sign of the cross.[1868]

[Sidenote: Joseph’s experience of miracle and magic.]

Joseph, the guardian of this same young man, finally became converted

to Christianity after Christ had appeared repeatedly to him in dreams

and cured him of diseases and after he himself, by employing the name

of Jesus, had cured a man of a demoniacal possession which made him

go shamelessly about the town in a nude state. After his conversion,

Joseph started to complete as a Christian church an unfinished

structure in Tiberias called the Adrianaion, which the citizens

previously had tried to convert into a public bath. When the Jews

endeavored to ruin his undertaking by bewitching the furnaces which he

had erected for the preparation of quick-lime, he counteracted their

magic by making the sign of the cross, sprinkling his furnaces with

holy water, and saying in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, “Let there be

power in this water to counteract all pharmacy and magic employed by

these men and to instill sufficient energy into the fire to complete

the house of the Lord.” With that his fires blazed up violently.[1869]

[Sidenote: Legend of St. James and Hermogenes the magician.]

Very similar both to the _Confession_ of Cyprian and the story of

Simon Magus is the legend of St. James the Great and Hermogenes the

magician, which is found in _The Golden Legend_ and which was often

reproduced in medieval stained glass windows.[1870] James converted

to Christianity a disciple of Hermogenes whom the magician had sent

against him when he was preaching in Judea. When the angry wizard cast

a spell over his erstwhile disciple, the latter was freed by means of

St. James’s cloak. When the magician sent demons to fetch both the

convert and the saint, James made them bring Hermogenes to him instead,

but then set him free, telling him that Christians returned good for

evil. Hermogenes now feared the vengeance that the demons would take

upon himself, and so James gave his staff to him to protect himself

with. Soon afterwards Hermogenes threw all his books of magic into the

sea and was baptized.

[Sidenote: Other contests of apostles and magicians in _The Golden

Legend_.]

“In _The Golden Legend_,” in fact, as Mâle says, “almost all the

apostles have to contend with magicians. But it is St. Simon and

St. Jude who strive with the most formidable of sorcerers, and they

challenge him even in the very sanctuary of magic art, the temple of

the Sun at Suanir, near Babylon. Undismayed by the science of Zoroaster

and Aphaxad, they foretell the future, they cause a new-born babe to

speak, they subdue tigers and serpents, and from a statue they cast

out a demon, which shows itself in the shape of a black Ethiopian and

flees uttering raucous cries.”[1871] If this last exorcism reminds

us somewhat of the exploits of Apollonius of Tyana, still more do

the performances of St. Andrew, who “must surpass all the marvels of

the magicians before he can convert Asia and Greece. He drives away

seven demons who in the shape of seven great dogs desolate the town of

Nicaea, and he exorcises a spirit which dwells in the _thermae_ and is

wont to strangle the bathers.”[1872]

CHAPTER XIX

ORIGEN AND CELSUS

Celsus’ charges of magic against Christianity—Hebrew magic as depicted

by Celsus—Various recriminations of magic—Origen’s distinction between

miracles and magic—Origen frees Jews as well as Christians from the

charge of magic—Celsus’ sceptical description of magic—Celsus suggests

a connection between magic and occult virtues in nature—Celsus on

magicians and demons—Origen ascribes magic to demons—Magic is an

elaborate art—The Magi of Scripture were not different from other

magicians—Origen’s Biblical commentaries—Balaam and the power of

words—Limitations to the power of Pharaoh’s magicians—Was Balaam a

prophet of God or a magician?—Balaam’s magic experiments—Limitations

to his magic power—Divine prophecy distinct from magic and

divination—The ventriloquist really invoked Samuel for Saul—Christians

less affected by magic than philosophers are—Their superstitious

methods against magic—Incantations—The power of words—Origen

admits a connection between the power of words and magic—Jewish

and Christian employment of powerful names is really magic—Celsus’

theory of demons—Origen calls demons wicked—But believes in presiding

angels—A law of spiritual gravitation—Attitude of Celsus toward

astrology—Attitude of Origen toward astrology—Further discussion in

his _Commentary on Genesis_—Problems of the waters above the firmament

and of one or more heavens—Augury, dreams, and prophecy—Animals and

gems—Origen later accused of countenancing magic.

[Sidenote: Celsus’ charges of magic against Christianity.]

In the celebrated work of Origen _Against Celsus_,[1873] written in the

first half of the third century, the subject of magic is often touched

upon, largely because Celsus in his _True Discourse_ had so frequently

brought charges of magic against Jesus, His Christian followers,

and the Jewish people from whom they had sprung. Celsus had called

Jesus “a wicked and God-hated sorcerer”;[1874] had contended that His

miracles were wrought by magic, not by divine power;[1875] and had

compared them unfavorably, as less wonderful, to the tricks performed

by jugglers and Egyptians in the middle of market-places.[1876] It

was the opinion of Celsus that Jesus in warning His disciples that

“there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show

great signs and wonders,” had tacitly convicted Himself of the same

magical practices.[1877] Celsus, for his part, warned the Christians

that they “must shun all deceivers and jugglers who will introduce

you to phantoms”;[1878] he accused them of employing incantations

and the names of certain demons;[1879] he asserted that he had seen

in the hands of Christian presbyters “barbarous books containing the

names and marvelous operations of demons,” and that these presbyters

“professed to do no good, but all that was calculated to injure human

beings.”[1880]

[Sidenote: Hebrew magic as depicted by Celsus]

Celsus regarded Moses equally with Jesus as a wizard,[1881] and he

evidently, like Juvenal and other classical writers, considered

the Jews and Syrians as a race of charlatans, especially given to

superstition, sorcery, incantations, ambiguous oracles and conjuration

of spirits. “They worship angels,” he declared, “and are addicted to

sorcery, in which Moses was their instructor.”[1882] He stated that

the Jews traced back their origin to “the first generation of lying

wizards,” by which phrase Origen thinks he referred to Abraham, Isaac,

and Jacob, whose names Origen admits are much employed in the magic

arts.[1883] Celsus further characterized the Jews as “blinded by some

crooked sorcery, or dreaming dreams through the influence of shadowy

specters,”[1884] and as “induced to bow down to the angels in heaven by

the incantations employed by jugglery and sorcery, in consequence of

which certain phantoms appear in obedience to the spells employed by

the magicians.”[1885] Celsus, also, in describing the many self-styled

prophets, Redeemers, and Sons of God in the Phoenicia and Palestine

of his own time, states that they make use of “strange, fanatical,

and quite unintelligible words, of which no rational person can find

any meaning,”[1886] and that those prophets whom he himself had

heard had afterwards confessed to him that these words “really meant

nothing.”[1887] Yet even the Christians—Celsus complains—who condemn

all other oracles, regard as marvelous and accept unquestioningly

“those sayings which were uttered or were not uttered in Judea after

the manner of that country, as indeed they are still delivered among

the peoples of Phoenicia and Palestine.”[1888]

[Sidenote: Various recriminations of magic.]

To these accusations of Celsus Origen himself adds that the Jews affirm

that Jesus passed Himself off as Christ by means of sorcery,[1889]

while the Egyptians charge Moses and the Hebrews with the practice of

sorcery during their stay in Egypt.[1890] Origen, on the other hand,

speaks of “the magical arts and rites of the Egyptians” and holds that

it was by divine aid and not by superior magic that Moses prevailed

over Pharaoh’s magicians.[1891] Celsus for his part had accused Jesus

during His residence in Egypt of “having there acquired some miraculous

powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves.”[1892]

[Sidenote: Origen’s distinction between miracles and magic.]

Origen repudiates the charges of magic made against Christ and His

followers as slanders. He asserts that Christianity on the contrary

strictly forbids the practice of magic arts,[1893] and that these

lost much of their force at the birth of Christ.[1894] He contends

that no magician would teach such noble doctrines as those of

Christianity.[1895] Origen goes so far as to deny that even the “false

Christs and false prophets,” who “shall show great signs and wonders,”

will be sorcerers, and he states that no sorcerer has ever claimed to

be Christ[1896]—an amazing assertion in view of his own allusions to

Simon Magus. Works of magic and miracles, Origen affirms, are no more

alike than are a wolf and a dog or a wood-pigeon and a dove. They are,

however, so closely related that if one admits the reality of magic

he must also believe in divine miracles, just as the existence of

sophistry proves that there is such a thing as sound argument and an

art of dialectic.[1897] Moreover, in one passage Origen admits that

“there would indeed be a resemblance” between miracles and magic, “if

Jesus, like the dealers in magic arts, had performed His works only

for show; but now there is not a single juggler who, by means of his

proceedings, invites his spectators to reform their manners, or trains

those to the fear of God who are amazed at what they see, nor who

tries to persuade them so to live as men who are to be justified by

God.”[1898] On the contrary, Origen asserts that the magicians’ “own

lives are full of the grossest and most notorious sins.”

[Sidenote: Origen frees Jews as well as Christians from the charge of

magic.]

Since it is one of Origen’s chief concerns to uphold Hebrew prophecy

as a proof of Christ’s divinity, although Celsus subjects the argument

from prophecy to ridicule; to defend the Old Testament against

Celsus’ attacks as an inspired record of greater antiquity than Greek

philosophy, history, and literature, which he asserts have stolen

truths from it; and to maintain that “there is no discrepancy between

the God of the Gospel and the God of the Law”:[1899]—since this is so,

it is incumbent upon him to rebut also the accusations of magic laid

by Celsus at the door of the Jews. Origen therefore asserts that the

Jews “despised all kinds of divination as that which bewitches men to

no purpose,” and cites the prohibition of _Leviticus_ (xix, 31) against

wizards and familiar spirits.[1900]

[Sidenote: Celsus’ sceptical description of magic.]

The _Reply to Celsus_ is of especial interest to us because it presents

as it were in parallel columns for our inspection the classical and

the Christian conceptions of and attitudes towards magic. Before

proceeding, therefore, to inquire how far justified Origen seems to

be in thus acquitting, or Celsus, on the other hand, in condemning

Christians and Jews on the charge of magic, it is essential to note

what magic means for either author. Both evidently regard it as a

term of reproach and as usually evil in character.[1901] Celsus lists

as feats of magic the expelling of demons and diseases from men, or

the sudden production of tables, dishes, and food as for an expensive

banquet, or of animals who move about as if alive. Celsus, however,

seems to speak with a sneer of “their most venerated arts” and

describes the banquet dishes as “dainties having no real existence” and

the animals as “not really living but having only the appearance of

life.” Therefore the ensuing comment of Origen seems unusually stupid

or unfair, when he tries to convict Celsus of inconsistency on the

ground that “by these expressions he allows as it were the existence of

magic,” whereas Origen hints that it was he “who wrote several books

against it.” “These expressions” are, on the contrary, precisely those

which a man who had attacked magic as deceptive would use. Celsus

further stated that an Egyptian named Dionysius had told him that magic

arts had power “only over the uneducated and men of corrupt morals,”

but had no effect upon philosophers, “because they were careful to

observe a healthy manner of life.”[1902] Celsus himself observed

that “those who in market-places perform most disreputable tricks

and collect crowds around them ... would never approach an assembly

of wise men.”[1903] It was at the request of a Celsus, moreover,

that the second century satirist Lucian wrote his _Alexander_ or

_Pseudomantis_[1904] in which some of the tricks of a magician-impostor

and oracle-monger are exposed, and in which allusion is made to the

“excellent treatises against the magicians” written by Celsus himself.

It seems reasonably certain that the Celsus of Lucian and the Celsus

of Origen are identical, as there are no chronological difficulties

and the same point of view is ascribed in either case to Celsus, whom

both Lucian and Origen regard as an Epicurean or at least in sympathy

with the Epicureans. Galen, in a treatise in which he lists his own

writings, mentions an “Epistle to Celsus the Epicurean.”[1905] This,

too, might be the same man.

[Sidenote: Celsus suggests a connection between magic and occult

virtues in nature.]

Another passage in which Celsus, according to Origen at least, “mixed

up together matters which belong to magic and sorcery” runs as

follows: “What need to number up all those who have taught methods

of purification, or expiatory hymns, or spells for averting evil, or

images, or resemblances of demons, or the various sorts of antidotes

against poison in clothing, or in numbers, or stones, or plants, or

roots, or generally in all kinds of things?”[1906] In another passage

Celsus again closely connected sorcery with the knowledge of occult

virtues in nature, arguing that men need not pride themselves upon

their power of sorcery when serpents and eagles know of antidotes to

poisons and amulets and the virtues of certain stones which help to

preserve their young.[1907] Origen objects that it is not customary

to use the word sorcery (γοητεία) for such things, and suggests that

Celsus is such an “Epicurean,” i. e., so sceptical, that he wishes to

discredit all those other beliefs and practices “as resting only on

the professions of sorcerers.” But we have already had proof enough in

other chapters that Celsus was not unjustified in connecting the occult

virtue of natural objects with magic, if not with sorcery.

[Sidenote: Celsus on magicians and demons.]

Celsus, as we shall see, believed in the existence of demons whom,

however, he did not regard as necessarily evil spirits, and whom he

probably regarded as above any connection with magic. Origen once says

that if Celsus “had been acquainted with the nature of demons” and

their operations in the magic arts, he would not have blamed Christians

for not worshiping them.[1908] The natural inference from this

statement is that Celsus did not associate demons with magic. Origen,

however, depicts him as “speaking of those who employ the arts of magic

and sorcery and who invoke the barbarous names of demons,”[1909] and

we have already heard him censure certain Christian presbyters for

their “barbarous books containing the names and marvelous doings of

demons.”[1910] It therefore becomes evident that magicians attempt to

avail themselves of the aid of demons, whether Celsus believes that

they succeed in their attempt or not.

[Sidenote: Origen ascribes magic to demons.]

Origen at any rate believes that magicians are aided by evil spirits,

and for him demons became the paramount factor in magic, just as it

is they who are worshiped in pagan temples as gods and who inspire

the pagan oracles.[1911] Indeed, just as Celsus has kept calling the

Christians sorcerers, so Origen is inclined to label all heathen

religions, rites, and ceremonies as magic. He quotes the Psalmist

as saying that “all the gods of the heathen are demons.”[1912] He

states that the dedication of pagan temples, statues, and the like are

accompanied by “curious magical incantations ... performed by those

who zealously serve the demons with magic arts.”[1913] Divination in

general, he believes, “proceeds rather from wicked demons than from

anything of a better nature.”[1914] He does not think of magic as a

deception, he does not endeavor to expose its frauds, he accepts its

marvels as facts, but declares that “magic and sorcery are produced

by wicked spirits, held spellbound by elaborate incantations and

yielding themselves to sorcerers.”[1915] Origen seems in doubt whether

the demons are coerced by the spells and charms of magic or yield

themselves willingly.[1916]

[Sidenote: Magic is an elaborate art.]

As we shall see, Origen is at least ready to attribute great power to

incantations, and he does not deny that magic is an elaborate art. With

such various arts of magic he contrasts the simplicity of Christian

prayers and adjurations “which the plainest person can use,” or the

Christian casting out of demons which is performed for the most part

by “unlettered persons.”[1917] Origen also suggests that the natural

properties of plants and animals are a factor in magic, when he cites

Numenius the Pythagorean’s description of the Egyptian deity Serapis.

“He partakes of the essence of all the animals and plants that are

under the control of nature, that he may appear to have been fashioned

into a god, not only by the image-makers with the aid of profane

mysteries and juggling tricks employed to invoke demons, but also by

magicians and sorcerers (μάγων καὶ φαρμακῶν) and those demons who are

bewitched by their incantations.”[1918] Another passage pointing in the

same direction is Origen’s description of “the man who is curiously

inquisitive about the names of demons, their powers and agency, the

incantations, the herbs proper to them, and the stones with the

inscriptions graven on them, corresponding symbolically or otherwise to

their traditional shapes.”[1919] Thus although Origen lays the emphasis

upon demons, we see that he admits most of the other customary elements

in magic.

[Sidenote: The Magi of Scripture were not different from other

magicians.]

Origen does not, like Philo Judaeus, Apuleius and some Christian

writers, distinguish two uses of the word magic, one good and one evil.

He does not differentiate between vulgar magic and malignant sorcery

on the one hand and the lore of learned Magi of the east on the other

hand. He simply says that the art of magic gets its name from the

Magi and that from them its evil influence has been transmitted to

other nations.[1920] Celsus had ranked the Magi among divinely inspired

nations but Origen objects to this. Yet he recognizes that the wise

men of the east who followed the star of Bethlehem and came to worship

the infant Christ were Magi.[1921] But he seems to regard them as

ordinary magicians, who were accustomed to invoke evil spirits.[1922]

He thinks that the coming of Christ dispelled the demons and hindered

the Magi’s spells and charms from working as usual. Trying to find the

reason for this, they would note the new star in the sky. Origen will

not admit that they could do all this by means of astrology, nor even

that they were astrologers at all; he accuses Celsus of blundering

in calling them Chaldeans or astrologers.[1923] Rather he thinks

that they could find an explanation of the star in the prophecies

of Balaam[1924] which they possessed and which predicted, as Moses

too records,[1925] “There shall arise a star out of Jacob, and a man

(or, as in the King James’ version, a scepter) shall rise up out of

Israel.”[1926] In another treatise than the _Reply to Celsus_ Origen

further explains that the Magi were descended from Balaam and so owned

his written prophecies.[1927] Balaam was perhaps alluding to these very

Magi descended from him who came to adore Jesus when he prophesied that

his seed should be as the seed of the just.[1928] Origen seems to

have been the first of the church fathers to state the number of these

Magi as three, which he does in one of his homilies on the Book of

Genesis.[1929]

[Sidenote: Origen’s Biblical commentaries.]

At this point indeed, we may well turn for a little while from the

_Reply to Celsus_ to those Biblical commentaries of Origen where he

discusses such Old Testament passages connected with magic as the

stories of Balaam and of the witch of Endor or ventriloquist. The

commentary of Origen upon the Book of Numbers is extant only in the

Latin translation by Rufinus, who literally snatched it for posterity

as a brand from the burning, for he did not refrain from this learned

and literary labor, although as he plied his pen in Messina in 410 A.

D. he could see the invading barbarians ravaging the fields and burning

Reggio just across the narrow strait which separates Sicily from

Italy.[1930]

[Sidenote: Balaam and the power of words.]

In commencing to speak of Balaam and his ass[1931] Origen implies

that much has already been written on this thorny theme and that

he approaches it with considerable diffidence. He prays God again

and again for grace to be able to explain it, not by means of

fabulous Jewish narrations—by which expression he perhaps alludes to

commentaries of the rabbis such as have reached us in the Talmud—but in

a sense that shall be reasonable and worthy of the divine law. To begin

with he admits the power of words, and not merely that of holy words

or words of God, but of certain words used by men. That such words

are in some respects more powerful than bodies is shown by the fact

that Balaam’s cursing could accomplish what armies and weapons could

not effect. This calls to mind one of the Mohammedan tales concerning

Balaam to the effect that by reading the books of Abraham he learned

“the name Yahweh by virtue of which he predicted the future, and got

from God whatever he wished.”[1932]

[Sidenote: Limitations to the power of Pharaoh’s magicians.]

The magicians of Egypt, too, who withstood Moses and Aaron before

Pharaoh, were able to turn rods into snakes and water into blood, feats

which no man could accomplish by mere bodily strength. Indeed, because

the king of Egypt knew that his magicians could do such things by a

human art of words, he thought, at first at least, that Moses too was

doing the same things not by the help of God but by the magic art.

There was, however, a very serious limitation to the magicians’ power.

By the aid of demons they could turn good into evil but they could not

repair the damage which they had done or restore the evil to good. The

rod of Moses, on the other hand, not only devoured theirs but turned

back from a snake into its original form,[1933] and it was necessary

for Moses to pray to God in order to stay the other plagues.

[Sidenote: Was Balaam a prophet of God or a magician?]

Origen classifies Balaam as a magician, not as a prophet. This seems

to have been the prevalent patristic and medieval view, although the

Biblical account in Numbers represents Balaam as in close and constant

communication with God and the Second Epistle of Peter[1934] calls him

a prophet although it condemns his temporary madness in seeking “the

wages of unrighteousness.” Josephus too calls him the best prophet of

his time but one who yielded to temptation.[1935] A fifteenth century

treatise on the translation of the relics of the three kings to Cologne

tells us that “concerning this Balaam there is an altercation in the

east between the Christians and the Jews”; the Jews holding that he

was no prophet but a diviner who predicted by magic and diabolical

arts, the Christians asserting that he was the first prophet of the

Gentiles.[1936] The problem continued to exercise the ingenuity of

Lutherans and theologians of the Reformed Churches, and in 1842 was

the main theme of a treatise of 290 pages in which Hebrew words and

quotations from Calvin abound.[1937]

[Sidenote: Balaam’s magic experiments.]

Origen remarks that magicians differ in the amount of power they

possess. Balaam was a very famous and expert one, known throughout the

whole orient. He had given many experimental proofs (_experimenta_)

of his skill and Balak had frequently employed him. The translator

Rufinus’s repeated use of the words _experimenta_ and _expertus_ here

is an interesting indication of the close connection between magic and

experiment.[1938]

[Sidenote: Limitation to his magic power.]

Great, however, as was Balaam’s fame and power, he could only curse and

not bless, an indication that he operated by the agency of demons who

also only work evil and not good. It is true that King Balak said to

him: “I know that whom you bless will be blessed,” but Origen regards

this as false flattery. Magicians employ the services of evil spirits,

but cannot invoke such angels as Michael, Raphael, and Gabriel, much

less God or Christ. Christians alone have the power to do this, and

they must cease entirely from the invocation of demons or the Holy

Spirit will flee from them.

[Sidenote: Divine prophecy distinct from magic and divination.]

It is true also that God in the end did speak through the mouth of

Balaam and that he blessed instead of cursed Israel. Origen will not

admit, however, that Balaam was worthy of this, or that a man can be

both a magician and a prophet; if God spake through Balaam, it was only

to prevent the demons from coming and helping Balaam to curse Israel.

Origen also attempts to solve the difficulties and inconsistencies

involved in the repeated appearances and conflicting commands of God

and the angel to Balaam. Finally we may note that Origen sees the

similarity between the use of cauldron-shaped tripods in human arts

of divination and the donning of the ephod by the prophets described

in the Old Testament.[1939] But he affirms that divine prophecy and

divination are two different things and cites the Biblical prohibition

of the latter.

[Sidenote: The ventriloquist really invoked Samuel for Saul.]

In his commentary upon the First Book of Samuel,[1940] Origen takes

the ground that when Saul consulted the witch or ventriloquist

(ἐγγαστριμύθος), Samuel’s ghost really appeared and spoke to Saul, for

the Scriptural account plainly says that the woman saw Samuel[1941]

and that Samuel spoke to Saul. Consequently Origen cannot agree with

those who have held that the woman deceived Saul or that both she and

he were deluded by a demon who assumed the guise of Samuel. No demon,

he thinks, could have prophesied that the kingdom would pass to David.

It has been objected that the enchantress could not raise the spirit of

Samuel from the infernal regions because he was a good man, but Origen

holds that even Christ descended to hell and that all before Him had

their abode there until He came to release them. From this position not

even the parable of Dives and of Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom with the

great gulf fixed between them can shake Origen.

[Sidenote: Christians less affected by magic than philosophers are.]

Origen disputes the statement of Celsus that philosophers are not

affected by the magic arts by pointing out that in Moiragenes’s _Life

of Apollonius of Tyana_, who was himself both a philosopher and

magician, it is affirmed that other philosophers were won over by his

magic power “and resorted to him as a sorcerer.”[1942] On the other

hand Origen makes the counter-assertion that the followers of Christ

“who live according to His gospel, using night and day continuously

and becomingly the prescribed prayers, are not carried away either by

magic or demons.”

[Sidenote: Their superstitious methods against magic.]

If these “prescribed prayers” were set forms of words, they would seem

not far removed in character from the incantations of the magicians

which they were supposed to counteract. An even clearer example of

preventive magic is seen in Origen’s explanation that the practice of

circumcision was a safeguard against some angel (_sic_) hostile to the

Jewish race.[1943]

[Sidenote: Incantations.]

If demons are for Origen of primary importance in magic, incantations

run a close second, since it is chiefly through them that men are

able to utilize the power of the demons. Some of the barbarians,

Origen tells us, “are admired for their marvelous powers of

incantation.”[1944] And when he mentions the miraculous releases of

Peter and Paul and Silas from prison, he adds that if Celsus had

read of these events he “would probably say in reply that there are

certain sorcerers who are able by incantations to unloose chains and

to open doors.”[1945] But Celsus did not say this; we must therefore

attribute the thought rather to Origen himself. Speaking elsewhere in

his own person Origen more than once informs us that “almost all those

who occupy themselves with incantations and magical rites” and “many

who conjure evil spirits” employ in their spells and incantations

such expressions as “God of Abraham.”[1946] Origen grants that these

phrases are used by the Jews themselves in their prayers to God and

exorcisms, and that the names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob possess

great efficacy “when united with the word of God.”[1947] Yet he will

not acknowledge that the Jews practice magic. He also denies the charge

of Celsus that Christians use incantations and the names of certain

demons, although he admits that Christians ward off magic by regular

use of prescribed prayers and frequently expel demons by repetition

of “the simple name of Jesus, and _certain other words_ in which they

repose faith, according to the holy Scriptures,” or “the name of Jesus

accompanied by the announcement of the narratives which relate to Him”

(presumably a repetition of the names of the four Evangelists).[1948]

It is even possible for persons who are not true Christians to make use

of the name of Jesus to work wonders just as magicians use the Hebrew

names.[1949]

[Sidenote: The power of words.]

Origen, however, does not try to justify these Hebrew and Christian

formulae, adjurations, and exorcisms on the ground that they are

simply prayers to God, who Himself then performs the cure or miracle

without compulsion. Origen believes that there is power in the words

themselves, as we have already heard him state in speaking of Balaam.

This is seen from the fact that when translated into another language

they lose their operative force, as those who are skilled in the use

of incantations have noted.[1950] Thus not what is signified by the

words, but the qualities and peculiarities of the words themselves, are

potent for this or that effect. It seems strange that Origen should

thus cite enchanters, when in the sentence just preceding he had spoken

of “our Jesus, whose name has been manifestly seen to have driven out

demons from souls and bodies....” Was the divine name alone and not God

the cause of the miracle? It may be added, however, that Origen denied

that languages were of human origin.[1951] But he has already gone

far along this line and in the previous chapter has stated that “the

nature of powerful names” is a “deep and mysterious subject.”[1952]

Some such names, he goes on to say, “are used by the learned amongst

the Egyptians, or by the Magi among the Persians, and by the Indian

philosophers called Brahmans.”

[Sidenote: Origen admits a connection between the power of words and

magic.]

Later on in the work, in a passage which we have already cited,

Origen waxed indignant with Celsus for speaking favorably of the

Magi, inventors of the destructive magic art. But now he speaks

almost in a tone of respect of magic, stating that if “the so-called

magic also is not, as followers of Epicurus” (i. e., men like Celsus

whom Origen accuses of being an Epicurean) “and Aristotle think, an

entirely chaotic affair but, as those skilled in such matters show, a

connected system comprising words known to very few persons,” then such

names as Adonai and Sabaoth “pertain to some mystic theology,” and,

“when pronounced with that attendant train of circumstances which is

appropriate to their nature, are possessed of great power.”

[Sidenote: Jewish and Christian employment of powerful names is really

magic.]

These last clauses make it clear that Jews and Christians were guilty

both of incantations and magic, however much Origen may protest to the

contrary. It can hardly be argued that Origen means to distinguish

this “so-called magic” from the magic art which he condemns in other

passages, for not only is it evident that the followers of Epicurus

and Aristotle make no such distinction, but Origen himself in other

passages ascribes the employment of such Hebrew names to ordinary

magicians and declares that such invocations of God are “found in

treatises on magic in many countries.”[1953] Origen also states in his

_Commentary upon Matthew_[1954] that the Jews are regarded as adepts

in adjuration of demons and that they employ adjurations in the Hebrew

language drawn from the books of Solomon. Moreover, he continues in

the present passage, “And other names, again, current in the Egyptian

tongue, are efficacious against certain demons who can only do certain

things; and others in the Persian language have corresponding power

over other spirits; and so on in every different nation, for different

purposes.” “ ... And when one is able to philosophize about the mystery

of names, he will find much to say respecting the titles of the

angels of God, of whom one is called Michael, and another Gabriel,

and another Raphael, appropriately to the duties which they discharge

in the world. And a similar philosophy of names applies also to our

Jesus.” Between such mystic theology and philosophy of names, the

Gnostic diagram of the Ophites,[1955] and the downright incantations of

the magicians, there is surely little to choose.

[Sidenote: Celsus’ theory of demons.]

From the names of God and angels, by uttering which such wonders may

be performed, we turn to the spirits themselves. Celsus seems to think

of demons as spiritual beings who act as intermediaries between the

supreme Deity and the world of nature and human society. He believes

that “in all probability the various quarters of the earth were from

the beginning allotted to different superintending spirits.”[1956] He

warns the Christians that it is absurd for them to think that they

can escape the demons by simply refusing to eat the meat that has

been offered to idols; the demons are everywhere in nature, and one

cannot eat bread or drink wine or taste fruit or breathe the very air

without receiving these gifts of nature from the demons to whom the

various provinces of nature have been assigned.[1957] The Egyptians

teach that even the most insignificant objects are committed to demon

care, and they divide the human body into thirty-six parts, each in

charge of a demon of the air who should be invoked in order to cure

an ailment of that particular part.[1958] Celsus mentions some of the

names of these thirty-six demons: Chnoumen, Chnachoumen, Cnat, Sicat,

Biou, Erou, and others. Celsus, however, does not accept this Egyptian

doctrine without qualification. He suspects, Origen tells us, that it

leads toward magic, and hence adds “the opinion of those wise men who

say that most of the earth-demons are taken up with carnal indulgence,

blood, odors, sweet sounds and other such sensual things; and therefore

they are unable to do more than heal the body, or foretell the fortunes

of men and cities, and do other such things as relate to this mortal

life.”[1959] Celsus himself, however, seems as unwilling to accept this

Egyptian view as he is to condone magic, and concludes that “the more

just opinion is that the demons desire nothing and need nothing, but

that they take pleasure in those who discharge toward them offices of

piety.”[1960] Celsus believes that divine providence regulates the acts

of the demons and so asks: “Why are we not to serve demons?”[1961]

[Sidenote: Origen calls demons wicked.]

Origen’s reply to this question is that the demons are wicked spirits

and concerned with magic and idolatry. He maintains that not only

Christians “but almost all who acknowledge the existence of demons”

regard them as evil spirits.[1962] His own attitude toward them is

invariably one of hostility. The thirty-six spirits who, as the

Egyptians believe, have charge of different parts of the human body,

Origen spurns as “thirty-six barbarous demons whom the Egyptian Magi

alone call upon in some unknown way.”[1963] Really we probably have

here to do with the astrological decans or sub-divisions of the signs

of the zodiac into sections of ten degrees each.

[Sidenote: But believes in presiding angels.]

Yet Origen’s notion of the spiritual world rather closely resembles

that of Celsus, for he is ready to ascribe to angels or other good

invisible beings much the same functions which Celsus attributed to

demons. He does not, for example, dispute the theory that different

parts of the earth and of nature are assigned to different spirits.

Instead he “ventures to lay down some considerations of a profounder

kind, conveying a mystical and secret view respecting the original

distribution of the various quarters of the earth among different

superintending spirits.”[1964] He quotes the Septuagint version of

Deuteronomy, “When the most High divided the nations.... He set

the bounds of the people according to the number of the angels of

God.”[1965] He narrates how after Babel, men “were conducted by those

angels who imprinted on each his native language to the different

parts of the earth according to their deserts.”[1966] He concludes

by saying, “These remarks are to be understood as being made by us

with a concealed meaning,”[1967] but there seems little doubt as to

his substantial agreement with the view of Celsus. Indeed, later when

Celsus asserts that Christians cannot eat, drink, or breathe without

being indebted to demons, Origen responds, “We indeed also maintain ...

the agency and control of certain beings whom we may call invisible

husbandmen and guardians; ... but we deny that those invisible agents

are demons.”[1968]

In his fourteenth homily on Numbers, as extant in Rufinus’s

translation,[1969] Origen again speaks of presiding angels in these

words. “And what is so pleasant, what is so magnificent as the work

of the sun or moon by whom the world is illuminated? Yet there is

work in the world itself too for angels who are over beasts and for

angels who preside over earthly armies. There is work for angels who

preside over the nativity of animals, of seedlings, of plantations,

and many other growths. And again there is work for angels who preside

over holy works, who teach the comprehension of eternal light and the

knowledge of God’s secrets and the science of divine things.” How this

passage might be used to encourage a belief in magic is made evident

by the paraphrase of it in _The Occult Philosophy_ of Henry Cornelius

Agrippa,[1970] written in 1510 at the close of the middle ages. He

represents Origen as saying, “There is work in the world itself for

angels who preside over earthly armies, kingdoms, provinces, men,

beasts, the nativity and growth of animals, shoots, plants, and other

things, giving that virtue which they say is in things from their

occult property.”

In the treatise _De Principiis_,[1971] Origen states that particular

offices are assigned to individual angels, as curing diseases to

Raphael, and the conduct of wars to Gabriel. This notion he perhaps

derived from the _Book of Enoch_ which, however, he states in

his _Reply to Celsus_ is not accepted by the churches as divinely

inspired.[1972] He further declares on the authority of passages in

the New Testament that to one angel the Church of the Ephesians was

entrusted; to another, that of Smyrna; that Peter had his angel and

Paul his,—nay that “every one of the little ones of the Church” has his

angel who daily beholds the face of God.[1973]

[Sidenote: A law of spiritual gravitation.]

Origen advances a further theory concerning spirits, which may be

described as a sort of law of spiritual gravitation. It is that when

souls are pure and “not weighted down with sin as with a weight of

lead,” they ascend on high where other pure and ethereal bodies and

spirits dwell, “leaving here below their grosser bodies along with

their impurities.” Polluted souls, on the contrary, have to stay

close to earth where they wander about sepulchers as ghosts and

apparitions.[1974] Origen therefore infers that pagan gods “who are

attached for entire ages to particular dwellings and places” on earth,

are wicked and polluted spirits. Origen of course will not admit that

Christians or Jews bow down even to angels; such worship they reserve

for God alone.[1975]

[Sidenote: Attitude of Celsus toward astrology.]

Both Celsus and Origen closely associate with the world of invisible

spirits, whether these be angels or demons, the visible heavenly

bodies, and thus lead us from magic, which Origen makes so dependent

upon demons, to the kindred subject of astrology, the pseudo-science

of the stars. Celsus had censured the Jews and by implication the

Christians for worshiping heaven and the angels, and even apparitions

produced by sorcery and enchantment, and yet at the same time

neglecting what in his opinion formed the holiest and most powerful

part of the heaven, namely, the fixed stars and the planets, “who

prophesy to everyone so distinctly, through whom all productiveness

results, the most conspicuous of supernal heralds, real heavenly

angels.”[1976] This shows that Celsus was much more favorably inclined

toward astrology than toward magic and less sceptical concerning its

validity. Origen also represents Celsus—and furthermore the Stoics,

Platonists, and Pythagoreans—as believing in the theory of the _magnus

annus_, according to which, when the celestial bodies all return to

their original positions after the lapse of some thousands of years,

history will begin to repeat itself and the same events will occur and

the same persons live over again.[1977] Origen also complains that

Celsus regards as a divinely-inspired nation the Chaldeans, who were

the founders of “deceitful genethlialogy,”[1978] as well as the Magi

whom Celsus elsewhere identified with the Chaldeans or astrologers, but

whom Origen as we have seen regards rather as the founders of magic.

[Sidenote: Attitude of Origen toward astrology.]

Origen is opposed both to this art of casting horoscopes and

determining the entire life of the individual from his nativity, and to

the theory of the _magnus annus_,[1979] because he is convinced that to

admit their truth is to annihilate free-will. But he is far from having

freed himself fundamentally from the astrological attitude toward the

stars; indeed he still shows vestiges of the old pagan tendency to

worship them as divinities. He is convinced that the celestial bodies

are not mere fiery masses, as Anaxagoras teaches.[1980] The body of

a star is material, it is true, but also ethereal. But furthermore

Origen is inclined to agree, both in the _De principiis_[1981] and in

the _Contra Celsum_,[1982] that the stars are rational beings (λογικὰ

καί σπουδαῖα—the latter word had already been applied to them by Philo

Judaeus) possessed of free-will and “illuminated with the light of

knowledge by that wisdom which is the reflection of everlasting light.”

He interprets a passage in Deuteronomy[1983] to mean that the stars

have in general been assigned by God to all the nations beneath the

heaven, but asserts that from this system of astral satrapies God’s

chosen people were exempted. He is willing to admit that the stars

foretell many things, and puts especial faith in comets as omens.[1984]

He states that they have appeared on the eve of dynastic changes, great

wars, and other disasters, and inclines also to agree with Chaeremon

the Stoic that they may come as signs of future good, as in the case of

the star announcing the birth of Christ.[1985] But while Origen will

grant reasoning faculties and a certain amount of prophetic power to

the stars, he refuses to permit worship of them. Rather he is persuaded

“that the sun himself and moon and stars pray to the supreme God

through his only begotten Son.”[1986]

Pierre Daniel Huet (1630-1721), the learned bishop of Avranches and

editor of Origen, in his commentaries upon Origen[1987] cites other

works, commentaries on Matthew, the Psalms, the Epistle to the Romans,

and Ezekiel, in which Origen again states that the stars are reasoning

beings, honor God, praise and pray to Him, and even that they are

capable of sin, a point upon which he agrees with the _Book of Enoch_

and Bardesanes but not with Philo Judaeus. Nicephorus[1988] states

that Origen was condemned in the fifth synod for his error concerning

the stars being animated. Sometimes, however, Huet points out, Origen

leaves it an open question whether the heavenly bodies are animated

or not.[1989] Huet also asserts that in his own time such great men

as Tycho Brahe and Kepler have defended the view that the stars are

animated beings.

[Sidenote: Further discussion in his _Commentary on Genesis_.]

In a fragment from Origen’s _Commentary on Genesis_ preserved by

Eusebius we have a further discussion of the stars and astrology.[1990]

Here he represents even Christians as troubled by the doctrine that

the stars control human affairs absolutely. This theory he attacks as

destructive to all morality, as rendering prayer to God of no avail,

and as subjecting even such events as the birth of Christ and the

conversion of each individual to Christianity to fatal necessity.

Like Philo Judaeus Origen holds that the stars are merely signs

instituted by God, not causes of the future, and quotes passages from

the Old Testament in support of his view; like the _Book of Enoch_ he

holds that men were instructed in the interpretation of the stars’

significations by the fallen angels. He argues at length that divine

foreknowledge does not impose necessity. While, however, God instituted

the stars as signs of the future, He intended that only the angels

should be able to read them, and deemed it best for mankind to remain

in ignorance of the future. “For it is a much greater task than lies

within human power to learn truly from the motion of the stars what

each person will do and suffer.”[1991] The evil spirits have, however,

taught men the art of astrology, but Origen believes that it is so

difficult and requires such superhuman accuracy that the predictions

of astrologers are more likely to be wrong than right. His tone toward

astrology is thus distinctly more unfavorable here than in the _Reply

to Celsus_. In arguing that the stars are merely signs, Origen asks why

men admit that the flight of birds and condition of entrails in augury

and liver-divination are only signs and yet insist that the stars are

causes of future events.[1992] The answer, of course, is simple enough:

all nature is under the control of the stars which alike produce the

events signified and the action of the birds or condition of the liver

signifying them. But the question is notable because it was also put by

Plotinus a little later in the same century.

[Sidenote: Problems of the waters above the firmament and of one or

more heavens.]

In explaining the Book of Genesis Origen said that celestial and

infernal virtues were represented by the waters above and below the

firmament respectively. This figurative interpretation gave offence

to many later Christian writers, although some of them were ready to

interpret the waters above as celestial virtues, but not to take the

waters below as signifying evil spirits.[1993] Concerning the question

of a plurality of heavens Origen says in the _Reply to Celsus_, “The

Scriptures which are current in the Churches of God do not speak of

seven heavens or of any definite number at all, but they do appear

to teach the existence of heavens, whether that means the spheres

of those bodies which the Greeks call planets or something more

mysterious.”[1994]

[Sidenote: Augury, dreams, and prophecy.]

Of other pagan methods of divination than astrology Origen disapproved

and classed them, as we have seen, as the work of demons. He was

impressed by the weight of testimony to the validity of augury,[1995]

although he states that it has been disputed whether there is any

such art, but he attributed the truth of the predictions to demons

acting through the animals and pointed out that the Mosaic law forbade

augury[1996] and classified as unclean the animals commonly employed

in divination. The true God, he held, would not employ irrational

animals at all to reveal the future, nor even any chance human being,

but only the purest of prophetic souls. Origen would appear for the

moment to have forgotten Balaam’s ass! Moreover, he himself accepted

other channels of foreknowledge than holy prophecy, and believed that

dreams often were of value in this respect. When Celsus, criticizing

the Scriptural story of the flight into Egypt, stated that an angel

descended from heaven to warn Joseph and Mary of the danger threatening

the Christ child, Origen retorted that the angelic warning came rather

in a dream—an occurrence which seemed in no way marvelous to him, since

“in many other cases it has happened that a dream has shown persons

the proper course of action.”[1997] Origen grants that all men desire

to ascertain the future and argues that the Jews must have had divine

prophets, or, since they were forbidden by the Mosaic law to consult

“observers of times and diviners,” they would have had no means of

satisfying this universal human craving. It was to slake this popular

curiosity concerning the future, Origen thinks, that the Hebrew seers

sometimes predicted things of no religious significance or other

lasting importance.[1998] Once Origen alludes to physiognomy, saying,

“If there be any truth in the doctrine of the physiognomists, whether

Zopyrus or Loxus or Polemon.”[1999]

[Sidenote: Animals and gems.]

The allusions to natural science in the _Reply to Celsus_ are not

numerous. There are a few passages where animals or gems are mentioned.

The remarks concerning animals mention the usual favorites and embody

familiar notions which we either have already met or shall meet

again and again. Celsus speaks[2000] of the knowledge of poisons and

medicines possessed by animals, of predictions by birds, of assemblies

held by other animals, of the fidelity with which elephants observe

oaths, of the filial affection of the stork, and of the Arabian bird,

the phoenix.[2001] Origen implies the belief that the weasel conceives

through its mouth when he says, “Observe, moreover, to what pitch of

wickedness the demons proceed, so that they even assume the bodies

of weasels in order to reveal the future.”[2002] Origen also adduces

the marvelous methods of generation of several kinds of animals in

support of the virgin birth of Jesus.[2003] Origen’s allusions to

gems can scarcely be classified as natural science. He contends that

Plato’s statement that our precious stones are a reflection of gems

in that better land is taken from Isaiah’s description of the city of

God.[2004] In another passage Origen again quotes Isaiah regarding

the walls, foundations, battlements, and gates of various precious

stones, but states that he cannot stop to examine their spiritual

meaning at present.[2005] In one of his homilies on the Book of

Numbers Origen displays a favorable attitude towards medical and

pharmaceutical investigation, saying, “For if there is any science

from God, what will be more from Him than the science of health, in

which too the virtues of herbs and the diverse properties of juices are

determined.”[2006]

[Sidenote: Origen later accused of countenancing magic.]

Origen’s belief that the stars were rational beings continued to be

held by the sect called Origenists and also by the heretic Priscillian

and his followers in the later fourth century. Priscillian, as we have

seen, was accused of magic and executed in 385. But we are surprised

to find Theophilus of Alexandria, who attacked some of Origen’s views

as heretical and persuaded Pope Anastasius to do the same, accusing

Origen in a letter written in 405 and translated into Latin by Jerome,

of having defended magic.[2007] Theophilus states that Origen has

written in one of his treatises, “The magic art seems to me a name for

something which does not exist”—a bold and admirable assertion, but one

which, as we have seen, the Epicurean Celsus would have been much more

likely to make than the Christian Origen—“but if it does, it is not the

name of an evil work.” Theophilus cannot understand how Origen, who

vaunts himself a Christian, can thus make himself a protector of Elymas

the magician who opposed the apostles and of Jamnes and Mambres who

resisted Moses. Huet, the learned seventeenth century editor of Origen,

knew of no such passage in his extant works as that which Theophilus

professes to quote.[2008]

CHAPTER XX

OTHER CHRISTIAN DISCUSSION OF MAGIC BEFORE AUGUSTINE

Plan of this chapter—Tertullian on magic—Astrology

attacked—Resemblance to Minucius Felix—Lactantius—Hippolytus on magic

and astrology—Frauds of magicians in answering questions—Other tricks

and illusions—Defects and merits of Hippolytus’ exposure of magic

and of magic itself—Hippolytus’ sources—Justin Martyr and others

on the witch of Endor—Gregory of Nyssa and Eustathius concerning

the ventriloquist—Gregory of Nyssa _Against Fate_—Astrology and the

birth of Christ—Chrysostom on the star of the Magi—_Sixth Homily

on Matthew_—The spurious homily—Number, names, and home of the

Magi—Liturgical drama of the Magi; _Three Kings of Cologne_—Another

homily on the Magi—Priscillianists answered—Number and race of the

Magi again.

[Sidenote: Plan of this chapter.]

In this chapter we shall supplement the picture of the Christian

attitude towards magic supplied us in preceding chapters by some

accounts of magic in other Christian writers of the period before

Augustine. After giving the opinions of a few Latin fathers, Minucius

Felix, Tertullian, and Lactantius, we shall consider the exposure

of magic devices in Hippolytus’ _Refutation of All Heresies_, then

compare the utterances of other fathers concerning the witch of Endor

with those of Origen, and finally discuss the treatment of the Magi

and the star of Bethlehem in both the genuine and the spurious homily

of Chrysostom on that theme, adding some account of the medieval

development of the legend of the three Magi, although leaving until

later the statements of medieval theologians and astronomers concerning

the star of the Magi. This makes a rather omnibus chapter, but its

component parts are too brief to separate as distinct chapters and they

all supplement the preceding chapter on Origen and Celsus.

[Sidenote: Tertullian on magic.]

Some important features of Origen’s account of magic are duplicated

in the writings of the western church father, Tertullian, who wrote

at about the same time or perhaps a few years before Origen. Again

the Jews are represented as calling Christ a magician,[2009] and when

Tertullian challenges the emperors to allow a Christian exorcist

to appear before them and attempt to expel a demon from someone so

possessed and force the spirit to confess its evil character, he

expects that his Christian exorcist will be accused of employing

magic.[2010] Again divination and magic are attributed to the fallen

angels; in fact, Tertullian follows the _Book of Enoch_ in stating that

men were instructed by the fallen angels in metallurgy and botany as

well as in incantations and astrology.[2011] The demons are represented

as invisible and “everywhere in a moment.” Living as they do in the air

near the clouds and stars, they are enabled to predict the weather.

They send diseases and then pretend to cure them by the recommendation

of novel remedies or prescriptions quite contrary to accepted medical

practice.[2012] “There is hardly a human being who is unattended by

a demon.”[2013] Magicians are described by Tertullian as producing

phantasms, insulting the souls of the dead, injuring boys for purposes

of divination, sending dreams, and performing many miraculous feats

by their complicated jugglery.[2014] “The science of magic” is well

defined as “a multiform contagion of the human mind, an artificer

of every error, a destroyer of safety and soul.” As examples of

well-known magicians Tertullian lists Ostanes and Typhon and Dardanus

and Damigeron[2015] and Nectabis[2016] and Berenice. Tertullian

states that a literature is current which promises to evoke ghosts

from the infernal regions, but that in such cases the dead are really

impersonated by demons, as was the fact when the pythoness seemed to

show Samuel to Saul, a point on which Tertullian disagrees with Origen.

Magic is therefore fallacious, a point which Tertullian emphasizes more

than Origen did, although Tertullian is not very explicit. He avers

that “it is no great task to deceive the outer eye of him whose mental

insight it is easy to blind.” The rods of Pharaoh’s magicians seemed to

turn into snakes, “but Moses’[2017] reality devoured their deceit.”

[Sidenote: Astrology attacked.]

Tertullian further diverges from Origen in definitely classifying

astrology as a species of magic along with that other variety of

magic which works miracles. Astrology is an art which was invented by

the fallen angels and with which Christians should have nothing to

do. Tertullian would not mention it but for the fact that recently a

certain person has defended his persistence in that profession, that

is, presumably after he had become a Christian. Tertullian states,

again unlike Origen, that the Magi who came from the east to the Christ

child were astrologers—“We know the union existing between magic and

astrology”—but that Christ’s followers are under no obligation to

astrology on their account, although he again implies the existence of

Christian astrologers in the sarcastic remark, “Astrology now-a-days,

forsooth, treats of Christ; is the science of the stars of Christ, not

of Saturn and Mars.” As Origen affirmed that the power of the demons

and of magic was greatly weakened by the birth of Christ, so Tertullian

affirms that the science of the stars was allowed to exist until the

coming of the Gospel, but that since Christ’s birth no one should

cast nativities. “For since the Gospel you will never find sophist

or Chaldean or enchanter or diviner or magician who has not been

manifestly punished.”[2018] Tertullian rejoices that the _mathematici_

or astrologers are forbidden to enter Rome or Italy, the reason being,

as he states in another passage,[2019] that they are consulted so much

in regard to the life of the emperor.

[Sidenote: Resemblance to Minucius Felix.]

Tertullian’s account of magic is perhaps borrowed from the dialogue

entitled _Octavius_ by M. Minucius Felix,[2020] which is generally

regarded as the oldest extant work of Christian Latin literature and

was probably written in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Some of the

words and phrases used by Tertullian and Minucius Felix in describing

magic are almost identical,[2021] and a third passage of the same sort

appears in Cyprian of Carthage in the third century.[2022] Ostanes,

one of Tertullian’s list of magicians, is also mentioned as the first

prominent magician by both Minucius Felix and Cyprian. Minucius Felix

ascribes magic to demons and seems to regard it as a deceptive and

rather unreal art, saying, “The magicians not only are acquainted with

demons, but whatever miraculous feats they perform, they do through

demons; under their influence and inspiration they produce illusions,

making things seem to be which are not, or making real things seem

non-existent.”

[Sidenote: Lactantius.]

A century after Tertullian Lactantius of Gaul treats of magic and

demons in about the same way in his _Divine Institutes_,[2023] written

at the opening of the fourth century. He denies that Christ was a

magician and declares that His miracles differed from those attributed

to Apuleius and Apollonius of Tyana in that they were announced

beforehand by the prophets. “He worked marvels,” Lactantius says to his

opponents, “and we should have thought Him a magician, as you think

now and as the Jews thought at the time, had not all the prophets with

one accord predicted that Christ would do these very things.”[2024]

Lactantius believes that the offspring of the fallen angels and “the

daughters of men” were a different variety of demon from their fathers

and more terrestrial. Be that as it may, he affirms that the entire

art and power of the magicians consist in invocations of demons who

“deceive human vision by blinding illusions so that men do not see

what does exist and think that they see what does not exist,”[2025]

the very expression that we have just heard from Minucius Felix. More

specifically Lactantius regards necromancy, oracles, liver-divination,

augury, and astrology as all invented by the demons.[2026] Like Origen

he emphasizes the power of the sign of the cross and the name of Jesus

against the evil spirits,[2027] and he implies the power of the names

of spirits when he states that, although demons may masquerade under

other forms and names in pagan temples and worships, in magic and

sorcery they are always summoned by their true names, those celestial

ones which are read in sacred literature.[2028]

[Sidenote: Hippolytus on magic and astrology.]

From these accounts of magic in Latin fathers, which do little more

than reinforce the impressions which we had already gained concerning

the Christian attitude, we come to a very different discussion by

Hippolytus who wrote in Greek although he lived in Italy. Eusebius

and Jerome state that Origen as a young man heard Hippolytus preach

at Rome; in 235 he was exiled to Sardinia; the next year his body was

brought back to Rome for burial. In Hippolytus, instead of attacks

upon astrology as impious, immoral, and fatalistic, and upon magic as

evil and the work of demons, we have an attempt to prove astrology

irrational and impracticable, and to show that magic is based upon

imposture and deceit. In the first four of the nine books of his

_Philosophumena_ or _Refutation of All Heresies_[2029] Hippolytus

set forth the tenets of the Greek philosophers, the system of the

astrologers, and the practice of the magicians in order later to be

able to show how much the various heretics had borrowed from these

sources. His second and third books are not extant; it is in the fourth

book or what is left of it that we have portions of his discussion of

astrology and magic.[2030]

[Sidenote: Frauds of magicians in answering questions.]

In exposing the frauds of magicians Hippolytus uses the word μάγος,

and not γόης, a sorcerer. He tells how the magicians pretend that

the spirits give response through a medium to questions which those

consulting them have written on papyrus, perhaps in invisible ink, and

folded up, after which the papyrus is placed on coals and burned. The

magician, however, operating in semi-darkness and making a great noise

and diversion and pretending to invoke the demon, is really occupied

in sprinkling the burnt papyrus with a mixture of water and copperas

(vitriol?) or fumigating it with vapor of a gall nut or employing

other methods to make the concealed letters visible. Having by some

such method discovered the question, he instructs the medium, who is

now supposed to be possessed of demons and is reclining upon a couch,

what answer to give by whispering to him through a long hidden tube

constructed out of the windpipe of a crane or ten brass pipes fitted

together. It will be recalled that it was by such a tube made of the

windpipes of cranes that Alexander the false prophet, according to

Lucian, caused the artificial head of his god to give forth oracles.

Hippolytus adds that at the same time the magician produces alarming

flames and liquids by such chemical mixtures as fossil salts and

Etruscan wax and a grain of salt. “And when this is consumed, the salts

bound upward and give the impression of a strange vision.”[2031]

[Sidenote: Other tricks and illusions.]

Hippolytus also reveals how magicians secretly fill eggs with dyes, how

they cause sheep to behead themselves against a sword by smearing their

throats with a drug which makes them itch, how a ram dies if its head

is merely bent back facing the sun, how they obstruct the ears of goats

with wax so that they cannot breathe and presently die of suffocation,

how out of sea foam they make a compound which, like alcohol, will

itself burn but not consume the objects over which it is poured.[2032]

He tells how the magician produces stage thunder, how he is able to

plunge his hand into a boiling cauldron or walk over hot coals without

being burnt, and how he can set a seeming pyramid of stone on fire. He

tells how the magicians loosen seals and seal them up again, just as

Lucian did in his _Alexander_ or _The Pseudo-Prophet_; how by means

of trap-doors, mirrors, and the like devices they show demons in a

cauldron; how they pretend to show flaming demons by igniting drawings

which they have sketched on the wall with some inflammable substance

or by loosing a bird which has been set on fire. They make the moon

appear indoors and imitate the starry sky by attaching fish scales to

the ceiling. They produce the sensation of an earthquake by burning

the ordure of a weasel with the stone magnet upon an open fire. They

construct a false skull from the caul of an ox, some wax, and some gum,

make it speak by means of a hidden tube, and then cause it suddenly to

collapse and disappear or to burn up.[2033]

[Sidenote: Defects and merits of Hippolytus’ exposure of magic and of

magic itself.]

This exposition of the frauds of the magicians by Hippolytus is rather

broken and incoherent, at least in the form in which his text has

reached us.[2034] Also we do not have much more faith in some of the

methods by which he says the feats of magic are really done than he has

in the ways by which the magicians claim to perform them. But while

his notions of the chemical action of certain substances and of the

occult virtue of others may be incorrect, the noteworthy point is that

he endeavors to explain magic either as a deception or as employing

natural substances and forces to simulate supernatural action, and that

his exposure of magic devices leaves no place for the action of demons.

Moreover, we see that magic fraud involves chemical experiment and

considerable knowledge or error in the field of natural science. Under

the guise or tyranny of magic experimental science is at work.

[Sidenote: Hippolytus’ sources.]

The question then arises whether Hippolytus himself discovered

these tricks of the magicians or whether he is simply copying his

explanations of them from some previous work. An examination of

the earlier chapters of his fourth book is sufficient to solve

the question. His arguments against the practice of the Chaldean

astrologers of predicting man’s life from his horoscope at the time

of his birth are drawn from the pages of the sceptical philosopher,

Sextus Empiricus, whom he follows so closely that his editors are

able to rectify his text by reference to the parallel passage in

Sextus. We are therefore probably safe in assuming, especially in

view of the resemblances to the _Alexander_ of Lucian which have

already been noted, that Hippolytus’ attack on magic is also largely

indebted to some classical work, possibly to that very treatise against

magic by Celsus to which both Origen and Lucian refer, or perhaps

to some account of apparatus with which to work marvels like Hero’s

_Pneumatics_.

[Sidenote: Justin Martyr and others on the witch of Endor.]

Turning back now to the subject of the witch of Endor, we find that

some of the church fathers agree with Origen rather than Tertullian

that the witch really invoked Samuel. Before Origen’s time Justin

Martyr in _The Dialogue with Trypho_[2035] had mentioned as a proof

of the immortality of the soul “the fact that the soul of Samuel

was called up by the witch, as Saul demanded.” Huet, who edited the

writings of Origen, lists other Christian authors[2036] who agreed

with Origen on this question, and further informs us that the ancient

rabbis were wont to say that a soul invoked within a year after

its death as Samuel’s was, would be seen by the ventriloquist but

not heard, and heard by the person consulting it but not seen, an

observation which suggests that Saul was deceived by ventriloquism,

while by others present the ghost would be neither seen nor heard.

[Sidenote: Gregory of Nyssa and Eustathius concerning the

ventriloquist.]

Two ecclesiastics of the fourth century composed special treatises upon

the ventriloquist or witch of Endor in which they took the opposite

view from that of Origen. The briefer of these two treatises is by

Gregory of Nyssa[2037] who states, without mentioning Origen by name,

that some previous writers have contended that Samuel was truly invoked

by magic with divine permission in order that he might see his mistake

in having called Saul the enemy of ventriloquists. But Gregory believes

that Samuel was already in paradise and hence could not be invoked

from the infernal regions; but that it was a demon from the infernal

regions who predicted to Saul, “To-morrow you and Jonathan shall be

with me.” The longer treatise of Eustathius of Antioch is a direct

answer to Origen’s argument as its title, _Concerning the Ventriloquist

against Origen_,[2038] indicates. Eustathius holds that it was illegal

to consult ventriloquists in view of Saul’s own previous action against

them and other prohibitions in Scripture, and that Origen’s remarks are

to be deplored as tending to encourage simple men to resort to arts of

divination. Eustathius contends that the witch did not invoke Samuel

but only made Saul think that she did, and that Saul himself did not

see Samuel. Pharaoh’s magicians similarly deceived the imagination with

shadows and specters when they pretended to turn rods into snakes and

water into blood. Eustathius does not agree with Origen that Samuel

was in hell. He holds that the predictions made by the pseudo-Samuel

were not impossible for a demon to make, and indeed were not strictly

accurate, since Saul did not die the very next day but the day after

it, and since not only Jonathan but his three sons were slain with

him.[2039] Furthermore, David was already so prominent in public

affairs that a demon might easily guess that he would succeed Saul.

[Sidenote: Gregory of Nyssa _Against Fate_.]

Gregory of Nyssa also composed a treatise, entitled _Against

Fate_,[2040] in the form of a disputation between a pagan philosopher

and himself at Constantinople in 382 A. D. His opponent holds that

the life of man is determined by the constellations at his nativity,

upon whose decree even conversion to Christianity would thus be made

dependent. Gregory assumes the position of one hitherto ignorant of

the principles of the art of astrology, of which the philosopher has

to inform him, but on general grounds it seems very unlikely that he

really was as ignorant as this of such a widespread superstition.

Furthermore, he is sufficiently read in the subject to incorporate some

of Bardesanes’ arguments, of whose treatise both Gregory’s title and

dialogue form are reminiscent. Some of Gregory’s reasoning, however,

might well be that of a tyro and is scarcely worth elaborating here.

[Sidenote: Astrology and the birth of Christ.]

When the writer of the Gospel according to Matthew included the story

of the wise men from the east who had seen the star, there can be

little or no doubt that he inserted it and that it had been formulated

in the first place, not merely in order to satisfy the ordinary,

unlearned reader with portents connected with the birth of Jesus, but

to secure the appearance of support for the kingship of Jesus from that

art or science of astrology which so many persons then held in high

esteem. To an age whose sublimest science was star-gazing it would seem

fitting and almost inevitable that God should have announced the coming

of the Prince of Peace in this manner, and the account in the Gospel of

Matthew is in a sense an attempt to present the birth of Christ in a

way to comply with the most searching tests of contemporary science.

But the early Christians were relatively rude and unlettered, and this

effort to construct a royal horoscope for Jesus is a crude and faulty

one from the astrological standpoint. For this, however, the author

of the Gospel and not the art of astrology is obviously responsible.

As a result, however, of the Gnostic reaction against astrological

fatalism or of an orthodox Christian opposition to both Gnostics and

astrologers, most of the early fathers of the church denied that this

passage implied any recognition of the truth of astrology and attempted

to explain away its obvious meaning. In doing this they often made the

crude and imperfect astrology of the Gospel a criterion for criticizing

the art of astrology itself.

[Sidenote: Chrysostom on the star of the Magi.]

Of patristic commentaries upon the passage in the Gospel of Matthew

dealing with the Magi and the star of Bethlehem one of the fullest

and most frequently cited by medieval writers is that attributed to

Chrysostom. I say “attributed,” because in addition to his genuine

sixth homily upon Matthew[2041] there was generally ascribed to

Chrysostom in the middle ages another homily which is extant only in

Latin[2042] and has been thought to be the work of some Arian. The

famous St. John Chrysostom was born at Antioch about 347 A. D. and

there studied rhetoric under the noted sophist Libanius. From 398 to

404 he held the office of patriarch of Constantinople; then he was

exiled to Cappadocia where he died in 407. One detail of his boyhood

may be noted because of its connection with magic. When he was a lad,

the tyrants in the city became suspicious of plots against them and

sent soldiers to search for books of magic and sorcery. One of the

men who was arrested and put to death had tried to rid himself of the

damaging possession of a book of magic by throwing it into the river.

Chrysostom and a playmate later unsuspectingly fished an object out of

the water which turned out to be this very book, and when a soldier

happened to pass by just then, they were very frightened lest he should

see what they had and they should be severely punished for it.[2043]

[Sidenote: Sixth homily on Matthew.]

In his sixth homily upon Matthew Chrysostom recognizes the difficulties

presented by the Scriptural account of the Magi and the star, and

approaches the task of expounding it with prayers to God for aid.

Some, he informs us, take the passage as an admission of the truth

of astrology. It is this opinion which he is concerned to refute. He

argues that it is not the function of astronomy to learn from the

stars who are being born but merely to predict from the hour of birth

what is going to happen, which seems a quite fallacious distinction

upon his part. He also criticizes the Magi for calling Jesus the king

of the Jews, when as Christ told Pilate His kingdom was not of this

world. He further criticizes them for coming to Christ’s birthplace

when they might have known that it would cause difficulties with Herod,

the existing king, and for coming, making trouble, and then immediately

going back home again. But these shortcomings would seem to be those

of the Scriptural narrative rather than of the art of astrology,

although of course Chrysostom is trying to make the point that the Magi

had not foreseen what would happen to themselves. He further argues

that the star of Bethlehem was not like other stars nor even a star

at all,[2044] as was proved by its peculiar itinerary, its shining by

day, its rare intelligence in hiding itself at the right time, and its

miraculous ability in standing over the head of the child. Chrysostom

therefore concludes that some invisible virtue put on the form of a

star. He thinks that the star appeared to the Magi as a reflection

upon the Jews, who had rejected prophet after prophet, whereas the

apparition of a single star was sufficient to bring barbarian Magi to

the feet of Christ. At the same time he believes that God especially

favored the Magi in vouchsafing them a star, a sign to which they were

accustomed, as the mode of announcement. Thus he comes dangerously near

to admitting tacitly what he has just been denying, namely, that the

stars are signs of the future and that there is something in the art

of astrology. In short, the star appeared to the Magi because they as

astrologers would comprehend its meaning. Chrysostom denies this openly

and does his best to think up arguments against it, but he cannot rid

his subconscious thought of the idea.

[Sidenote: The spurious homily.]

The other homily ascribed to Chrysostom repeats some of the points

made in the genuine homily, but adds others. The preacher has read

somewhere, perhaps in Origen where we have already met the suggestion,

that the Magi had learned that the star would appear from the books

of the diviner Balaam, “whose divination is also put into the Old

Testament: ‘A star shall arise from Jacob and a man shall come forth

from Israel, and he shall rule all nations.’” But the preacher does

not state why it is any better to have such a prediction made by a

diviner than by an astrologer. The preacher has also heard some cite

a writing, which is not surely authentic but yet is not destructive

to the Faith and rather pleasing, to the effect that in the extreme

east on the shores of the ocean live a people who possess a writing

inscribed with the name of Seth and dealing with the appearance of this

star and the gifts to be offered. This writing was handed down from

father to son through successive generations, and twelve of the most

studious men of their number were chosen to watch for the coming of

the star, and whenever one died, another was chosen in his place. They

were called Magi in their language because they glorified God silently.

Every year after the threshing of the harvest they climbed a mountain

to a cave with delightful springs shaded by carefully selected trees.

There they washed themselves and for three days in silence prayed and

praised God. Finally one year the star appeared in the form of a little

child with the likeness of a cross above it; and it spoke with them

and taught them and instructed them to set out for Judea.[2045] When

they had set out, it went before them for two years, during which time

food and drink were never lacking in their wallets. On their return

they worshiped and glorified God more sedulously than ever and preached

to their people. Finally, after the resurrection, the apostle Thomas

visited that region and they were baptized by him and were made his

assistant preachers. This tale is indeed pleasing enough, and it saves

the Magi from all imputation of magic arts and employment of demons and

even denies that they were astrologers. But as a device to escape the

natural inference from the Gospel story that the birth of Christ was

announced by the stars and in a way which astronomers could comprehend

it is certainly far-fetched, and shows how Christian theologians were

put to it to find a way out of the difficulty. The homily goes on to

advance some of the usual arguments against astrology, such as that

the stars cannot cause evil, that the human will is free, and that a

science of individual horoscopes cannot account for all men worshiping

idols before Christ and abandoning idolatry and other ancient customs

thereafter, or for the perishing in the deluge of all men except the

family of Noah, or for national customs such as circumcision among the

Jews and incest among the Persians. Here we again probably see the

influence of Bardesanes.

[Sidenote: Number, names, and home of the Magi.]

We have already noted that Origen seems to have been the first of

the fathers to state the number of the Magi as three, whereas the

homily just considered implies that there were twelve of them. Their

representation in art as three in number did not become general

until the fourth century,[2046] while the depiction of them as kings

was also a gradual and, according to Kehrer, later growth.[2047]

Bouché-Leclercq, citing an earlier monograph,[2048] states that the

royalty of the Magi was invented towards the sixth century to show

the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies,[2049] and that Bede is

the first who knows their names. But Mâle says, “Their mysterious

names are first found in a Greek chronicle of the beginning of the

sixth century translated into Latin by a Merovingian monk,” and are

“Bithisarea, Melichior, Gathaspa.”[2050] The provenance of the Magi was

variously stated by the Christian fathers:[2051] Arabia according to

Justin Martyr, Epiphanius, and Tertullian or Pseudo-Tertullian; Persia

according to Clement of Alexandria, Basil, and Cyril; Persia or Chaldea

according to Chrysostom and Diodorus of Tarsus; Chaldea according to

Jerome and Augustine and the philosopher Chalcidius in his commentary

upon Plato’s _Timaeus_.[2052] The homily which we were just considering

gave the impression that they came from India.

[Sidenote: Liturgical drama of the Magi: _The Three Kings of Cologne_.]

In the middle ages the Magi appeared in liturgical drama as well as in

art. An early instance is a tenth century lectionary from Compiègne,

now preserved at Paris,[2053] where after homilies by various fathers

there is added in a hand only slightly later the liturgical drama of

the adoration of the Magi. In the later middle ages there came into

existence the _History_ or _Deeds of the Three Kings of Cologne_, as

the Magi came to be called from the supposed translation of their

relics to that city. Their bodies were said to have been brought by

the empress Helena from India to Constantinople, whence they were

transferred to Milan, and after its destruction by Barbarossa, to

Cologne. This “fabulous narration,” as it has well been entitled,[2054]

also has much to say of the miracles of the apostle Thomas in India and

of Prester John, to whom we shall devote a later chapter. It asserts

that the three kings reached Jerusalem on the thirteenth day after

Christ’s birth by a miraculously rapid transit by day and by night of

themselves and their armies to the marvel of the inhabitants of the

towns through which they passed, or rather, flew.[2055] After they had

returned home and had successively migrated to Christ above, another

apparition of a star marked this fact.[2056] The treatise exists in

many manuscripts[2057] and was printed more than once before 1500.

[Sidenote: Another homily on the Magi.]

Finally we may note the contents of the homily on the Magi which

immediately precedes the liturgical drama concerning them in the

above mentioned tenth century lectionary.[2058] The Magi are said to

have come on the thirteenth day of Christ’s nativity. That they came

from the Orient was fitting since they sought one of whom it had been

written, _Ecce vir oriens_. It was also fitting that Christ’s coming

should be announced to shepherds of Israel by a rational angel, to

Gentile Magi by an irrational star. This star appeared neither in the

starry heaven nor on earth but in the air; it had not existed before

and ceased to exist after it had fulfilled its function. Although he

has just said that the star appeared in the air and not in the sky,

the preacher now adds that when a new man was born in the world it was

fitting that a new star should appear in the sky. He also, in pointing

out how all the elements recognized that their Creator had come into

the world, states that the sky sent a star, the sea allowed Him to walk

upon it, the sun was darkened, stones were broken and the earth quaked

when He died.

[Sidenote: Priscillianists answered.]

Since the heretics known as Priscillianists have adduced the star at

Christ’s birth to prove that every man is born under the fates of the

stars, the preacher endeavors to answer them. He holds that since the

star came to where Jesus lay He controlled it rather than vice versa.

Then follow the usual arguments against genethlialogy that many men

born under the sign Aquarius are not fishermen, that sons of serfs are

born at the same time as princes, and the case of Jacob and Esau. The

star was merely a sign to the Magi and by its twinkling illuminated

their minds to seek the new-born babe. It seems scarcely consistent

that a star which the preacher has called irrational should illuminate

minds.

[Sidenote: Number and race of the Magi again.]

The homily goes on to say that opinions differ as to who the Magi were

and whence they came. Owing to the prophecy that the kings of Tarsus

and the isles offer presents, the kings of the Arabs and Sheba bring

gifts, some regard Tarsus, Arabia, and Sheba as the homes of the Magi.

Others call them Persians or Chaldeans, since Chaldeans are skilled in

astronomy. Others say that they were descendants of Balaam. At any rate

they were the first Gentiles to seek Christ and they are well said to

have been three, symbolizing faith in the Trinity, the three virtues,

faith, hope and charity, the three safeguards against evil, thoughts,

words and works, and the three Gentile contributions to the Faith of

physics, ethics, and logic, or natural, moral, and rational philosophy.

The preacher then indulges in further allegorical interpretation anent

Herod and what was typified by the gifts of the Magi.[2059]

CHAPTER XXI

CHRISTIANITY AND NATURAL SCIENCE: BASIL, EPIPHANIUS, AND THE

PHYSIOLOGUS

Lactantius not a fair example—Commentaries on the Biblical account of

creation—Date and delivery of Basil’s _Hexaemeron_—The _Hexaemeron_

of Ambrose—Basil’s medieval influence—Science and religion—Scientific

curiosity of Basil’s audience—Allusions to amusements—Conflicts

with Greek science—Agreement with Greek science—Qualification of

the Scriptural account of creation—The four elements and four

qualities—Enthusiasm for nature as God’s work—Sin and nature—Habits

of animals—Marvels of nature—Spontaneous generation—Lack of

scientific scepticism—Sun worship and astrology—Permanence of

species—Final impression from the _Hexaemeron_—The _Medicine Chest_

of Epiphanius—Gems in the high priest’s breastplate—Some other

gems—The so-called _Physiologus_; problem of its origin—Does the

title apply to any one particular treatise?—And to what sort of a

treatise?—Medieval art shows almost no symbolic influence of the

_Physiologus_—_Physiologus_ was more natural scientist than allegorist.

[Sidenote: Lactantius not a fair example.]

The opposition of early Christian thought to natural science has been

rather unduly exaggerated. For instance, Lactantius, one of the least

favorable to Greek philosophy and natural science of the fathers,

should hardly be cited as typical of early Christian attitude in

such matters. Nor does his opposition impress one as weighty.[2060]

He ridicules the theory of the Antipodes,[2061] which he perhaps

understands none too well, asking if anyone can be so inept as to

think that there are men whose feet are above their heads, although

he knows very well that Greek science teaches that all weights fall

towards the center of the earth, and that consequently if the feet are

nearer the center of the earth that they must be below the head. He

continues, however, to insist that the philosophers are either very

stupid, or just joking, or arguing for the sake of arguing, and he

declares that he could show by many arguments that the heaven cannot

possibly be lower than the earth—which no one has asserted except

himself—if it were not already time to close his third book and begin

the fourth. Apparently Lactantius is the one who is arguing for the

sake of arguing, or just joking, or else very stupid, and I fear it

is the last. But other Christian fathers were less dense, and we

already have heard the cultured pagan Plutarch scoff at the notion of

a spherical earth and of antipodes. We may grant, however, that the

ecclesiastical writers of the Roman Empire and early medieval period

normally treat of spiritual rather than material themes and discuss

them in a religious rather than a scientific manner.

[Sidenote: Commentaries on the Biblical account of creation.]

But in the commentaries upon the books of the Bible which the fathers

multiplied so voluminously it was necessary for them, if they began

their labors with _Genesis_, to deal at the very start in the first

verses of the first book of the Bible with an explanation of nature

which at several points was in disagreement with the accepted theories

of Greek philosophy and ancient science. Such comment upon the opening

verses of _Genesis_ sometimes developed into a separate treatise

called _Hexaemeron_ from the works of the six days of creation which

it discussed. Of the various treatises of this type the _Hexaemeron_

of Basil[2062] seems to have been both the best[2063] and the most

influential, and will be considered by us as an example of Christian

attitude towards the natural science and, to some extent, the

superstition of the ancient world.

[Sidenote: Date and delivery of Basil’s _Hexaemeron_.]

Basil died on the first day of January, 379 A. D., and was born about

329. When or where the nine homilies which compose his _Hexaemeron_

were preached is not known, but from an allusion to his bodily

infirmity in the seventh homily and his forgetfulness the next day in

Homily VIII we might infer that it was late in life. To all appearances

these sermons were taken down and have reached us just as they were

delivered to the people, to whose daily life Basil frequently adverts.

The sermons were delivered early in the morning before the artisans

in the audience went to their work and again at the close of the day

and before the evening meal, since Basil sometimes speaks of the

approach of darkness surprising him and of its consequently being time

to stop.[2064] One of the surest indications either that the sermons

were delivered extemporaneously, or that Basil was repeating with

variations to suit the occasion and present audience sermons which he

had delivered so often as to have practically memorized, occurs in the

eighth homily where he starts to discuss land animals, forgetting that

the last day he did not get to birds, but is presently brought to a

realization of his omission by the actions of his audience and, after a

pause and an apology, makes a fresh start upon birds. The _Hexaemeron_

was highly praised by Basil’s contemporaries and was regarded as the

best of his works by later Byzantine literary collectors and critics.

[Sidenote: The _Hexaemeron_ of Ambrose.]

Basil’s work, however, was not the first of its kind, as Hippolytus and

Origen, at least, are known to have earlier composed similar treatises,

and still earlier in the treatise of Theophilus _To Autolycus_ we

find a few chapters[2065] devoted to the six days of creation. In one

of his letters Jerome states that “Ambrose recently so compiled the

_Hexaemeron_ of Origen that he rather followed the views of Hippolytus

and Basil.”[2066] This Latin work of Ambrose is extant and seems to me

to follow Basil very closely. At times the order of presentation is

slightly varied and the work of Ambrose is longer, but this is due to

its more verbose rhetoric and greater indulgence in Biblical quotation,

and not to the introduction of new ideas. The Benedictine editors of

Ambrose admit that he has taken a great deal from Basil but deny that

he has servilely imitated him.[2067] But a striking instance of such

servile imitation is seen in Ambrose’s duplicating even Basil’s mistake

in omitting to discuss birds and then apologizing for it, reminding

one of the Chinese workman who made all the new dinner plates with a

crack and a toothpick stuck in it, like the old broken plate which

he had been given as a model. It is true that Ambrose does not first

discuss land animals for a page as Basil did, but makes his apology

more immediately. The opening words of the eighth sermon in the twelfth

chapter of his fifth book are, “And after he had remained silent for

a moment, again resuming his discourse, he said....” Then comes his

apology, expressed in different terms from Basil’s and to the effect

that in his previous discourse upon fishes he became so immersed in

the depths of the sea as to forget all about birds. Thus the incident

which in Basil had every appearance of a natural mistake, in Ambrose

has all the earmarks of an affected imitation. It is barely possible,

however, that Origen made the original mistake and that Basil and

Ambrose have both imitated him in it. On the other hand, we are told

that the _Hexaemerons_ of Origen and Basil differed fundamentally in

this respect, that Origen indulged to a great extent in allegorical

interpretation of the Mosaic account of creation,[2068] while Basil

declares that he “takes all in the literal sense,” is “not ashamed of

the Gospel,” and “admits the common sense of the Scriptures.”[2069]

[Sidenote: Basil’s medieval influence.]

At any rate, Basil’s _Hexaemeron_ seems to have supplanted all such

previous treatises in Greek, while its western influence is shown not

only by Ambrose’s imitation of it so soon after its production, but by

Latin translations of it by Eustathius Afer in the fifth, and perhaps

by Dionysius Exiguus in the sixth century. Medieval manuscripts of it

are fairly numerous and sometimes of early date,[2070] and include

an Anglo-Saxon epitome ascribed to Aelfric in the Bodleian Library.

Bartholomew of England[2071] in the thirteenth century quotes “Rabanus

who uses the words of Basil in the _Hexaemeron_” for a description

of the empyrean heaven which I have been unable to find in the

works of either Rabanus or Basil. Bede, in a similar, though much

abbreviated, work of his own, states that while many have said many

things concerning the beginning of the _Book of Genesis_, the chief

authorities, so far as he has been able to discover, are Basil of

Caesarea, whom Eustathius translated from Greek into Latin, Ambrose of

Milan, and Augustine, bishop of Hippo. These works, however, were so

long and expensive that only the rich could afford to purchase them and

so profound that only the learned could read and understand them. Bede

had accordingly been requested to compose a brief rendition of them,

which he does partly in his own words, partly in theirs.[2072]

[Sidenote: Science and religion.]

The general tenor of Basil’s treatise may be described as follows.

He accepts the literal sense of the first chapter of _Genesis_ as a

correct account of the universe, and, when he finds Greek philosophy

and science in disagreement with the Biblical narrative, inveighs

against the futilities and follies and conflicting theories and

excessive elaborations of the philosophers. On such occasions the

simple statements of Scripture are sufficient for him. “Upon the

essence of the heavens we are contented with what Isaiah says.... In

the same way, as concerns the earth, let us resolve not to torment

ourselves by trying to find out its essence.... At all events let us

prefer the simplicity of faith to the demonstrations of reason.”[2073]

These three quotations illustrate his attitude at such times. But at

all other times he is apt to follow Greek science rather implicitly,

accepting without question its hypothesis of four elements and four

qualities, and taking all his details about birds, beasts, and fish

from the same source.

[Sidenote: Scientific curiosity of Basil’s audience.]

Moreover, while Basil may affirm that the edification of the church

is his sole aim and interest, it is evident that his audience are

possessed by a lively scientific curiosity, and that they wish to hear

a great deal more about natural phenomena than Isaiah or any other

Biblical author has to offer them. “What trouble you have given me

in my previous discourses,” exclaims Basil in his fourth homily, “by

asking me why the earth was invisible, why all bodies are naturally

endued with color, and why all color comes under the sense of sight?

And perhaps my reason did not appear sufficient to you.... Perhaps you

will ask me new questions.” Basil gratifies this curiosity concerning

the world of nature with many details not mentioned in the Bible but

drawn from such works as Aristotle’s _Meteorology_ and _History of

Animals_. This scientific curiosity displayed by Basil’s hearers is

the more interesting in that artisans who had to labor for their daily

bread appear to have made up a large element in his audience.[2074]

It is perhaps on their account that Basil often speaks of God as the

supreme artisan or artificer or artist,[2075] or calls their attention

to “the vast and varied workshop of divine creation,”[2076] and makes

other flattering allusions to arts which support life or produce

enduring work, and to waterways and sea trade.[2077] He also seems to

have a sincere appreciation of the arts and admiration of beauty, which

he twice defines.[2078]

[Sidenote: Allusions to amusements.]

At the risk of digression, it is perhaps worth noting further that

Basil’s hearers seem to have been very familiar with, not to say fond

of, the amusements common in the cities of the Roman Empire. Twice he

opens his sermons with allusions to the athletes of the circus and

actors of the theater,[2079] apparently as the surest way of quickly

catching the attention of his audience, while on a third occasion, in

concluding his morning address on what appears to have been a holiday,

he remarks that if he had dismissed them earlier, some would have spent

the rest of the day gambling with dice, and that “the longer I keep

you, the longer you are out of the way of mischief.”[2080] He also

alludes to the spinning of tops and to what was apparently the game of

push-ball.[2081]

[Sidenote: Conflicts with Greek science.]

Taking up the contents of the _Hexaemeron_ more in detail, we may

first note those points upon which Basil supports the statements of

the Bible against Greek science and philosophy. He of course insists

that the universe was created by God and is not co-existent, much

less identical, with Him.[2082] He also denies that the form of the

world alone is due to God and that matter is of separate origin.[2083]

Nor will he accept the arguments of the philosophers who “would

rather lose their tongues” than admit that there is more than one

heaven. Basil is ready to believe not merely in a second, but a third

heaven, such as the apostle Paul speaks of being rapt to. He regards

a plurality of heavens as no more difficult to credit than the seven

concentric spheres of the planets, and as much more probable than the

philosophic theory of the music of the spheres which he decries as

“ingenious frivolity, the untruth of which is evident from the first

word.”[2084] He also defends the statement of Scripture that there are

waters above the firmament, not only against the doctrines of ancient

astronomy,[2085] but also against “certain writers in the church,”

among whom he probably has Origen in mind, who interpret the passage

figuratively and assert that the waters stand for “spiritual and

incorporeal powers,” those above the firmament representing good angels

and those below the firmament standing for evil demons. “Let us reject

these theories as we would the interpretations of dreams and old-wives’

tales.”[2086]

In connection with Basil’s defense of the plurality of the heavens

it may be noted that R. H. Charles presents evidence to show “that

speculations or definitely formulated views on the plurality of the

heavens were rife in the very cradle of Christendom and throughout

its entire development,” and that “the prevailing view was that of

the sevenfold division of the heavens.”[2087] He fails, however,

to discriminate between the doctrine of Greek philosophy that the

universe was one, although the circles of the planets are seven, and

the plurality of the heavens, which Basil insists that the philosophers

deny; and very probably the Jewish and early Christian notions of

successive heavens full of angels and spirits developed from the

spheres of the planets. Among the various early heresies described by

the fathers are also found, of course, many allusions to these seven

spheres or heavens. The disciples of Valentinus, for example, according

to Irenaeus and Epiphanius, “affirm that these seven heavens are

intelligent and speak of them as angels ... and declare that Paradise,

situated above the third heaven, is a powerful angel.”[2088]

[Sidenote: Agreement with Greek science.]

On the other hand, we may note some points where Basil is in accord

with Greek science. He warns his hearers not to “be surprised that the

world never falls; it occupies the center of the universe, its natural

place.”[2089] He advances numerous proofs of the immense size of the

sun and moon.[2090] He accepts the hypothesis of four elements but

abstains from passing judgment upon the question of a fifth element of

which the heavens and celestial bodies may be composed.[2091] He thinks

that “it needs not the space of a moment for light to pass through” the

ether.[2092]

[Sidenote: Qualification of the Scriptural account of creation.]

Moreover, Basil finds it necessary to qualify some of the statements

in the first chapter of _Genesis_. He interprets the command, “Let

the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place,”

to apply only to the sea or ocean, which he contends is one body of

water, and not to pools and lakes,[2093] recognizing that otherwise

“our explanation of the creation of the world may appear contrary to

experience, because it is evident that all the waters did not flow

together in one place.” In this connection he states that “although

some authorities think that the Hyrcanian and Caspian Seas are enclosed

in their own boundaries, if we are to believe the geographers, they

communicate with each other and together discharge themselves into the

Great Sea.” He speaks of “the vast ocean, so dreaded by navigators,

which surrounds the isle of Britain and western Spain.”[2094] Later

he contends that “sea water is the source of all the moisture of the

earth.”[2095] He has also to meet the following objection made to the

eleventh and twelfth verses of the first chapter of _Genesis_: “How

then, they say, can Scripture describe all the plants of the earth as

seed-bearing, when the reed, couch-grass, mint, crocus, garlic, and the

flowering rush and countless other species produce no seed? To this we

reply that many vegetables have their seminal virtue in the lower part

and in the roots.”[2096]

[Sidenote: The four elements and four qualities.]

Basil regards the words of _Genesis_, “God called the dry land earth,”

as a recognition of the fact that drought is the primal property of

earth, as humidity is of air; cold, of water; and heat, of fire. He

adds, however, that “our eyes and senses can find nothing which is

completely singular, simple, and pure. Earth is at the same time dry

and cold; water, cold and moist; air, moist and warm; fire, warm and

dry.”[2097] Indeed, as he has already stated in the previous homily,

the mixture of elements in actual objects is even more intricate

than this last sentence might seem to indicate. Every element is in

every other, and we not only do not perceive with our senses any pure

elements but not even any compounds of two elements only.[2098]

[Sidenote: Enthusiasm for nature as God’s work.]

Basil is alive to the absorbing interest of the world of nature and

to the marvelous intricacies of natural science. He tells his hearers

that as “anyone not knowing a town is taken by the hand and led through

it,” so he will guide them “through the mysterious marvels of this

great city of the universe.”[2099] As he had said in the preceding

homily, “A single plant, a blade of grass is sufficient to occupy all

your intelligence in the contemplation of the skill which produced

it.”[2100] He sees “great wisdom in small things.”[2101] Thus by the

argument from design he is apt to work back from nature to the Creator,

so that his enthusiasm cannot be regarded as purely scientific. Going a

step farther than Galen’s argument from design, he contends that “not

a single thing has been created without reason; not a single thing is

useless.”[2102]

[Sidenote: Sin and nature.]

Basil also cherishes the notion, which we have already found both in

pagan and Christian writers, that human sin leaves its stain or has its

effect upon nature. The rose was without thorns before the fall of man,

and their addition to its beauty serves to remind us that “sorrow is

very near to pleasure.”[2103]

[Sidenote: Habits of animals.]

Basil discusses the habits of animals largely in order to draw moral

lessons from them for human beings and he has several passages in the

style supposed to be characteristic of the _Physiologus_. But he also

refers in a number of places to the ability of animals to find remedies

with which to cure themselves of ailments and injuries, or to their

power of divining the future. The sea-urchin foretells storms; sheep

and goats discern danger by instinct alone. The starling eats hemlock

and digests it “before its chill can attack the vital parts”; and the

quail is able to feed on hellebore. The wounded bear nurses himself,

filling his wounds with mullein, an astringent plant; “the fox heals

his wounds with droppings from the pine tree”; the tortoise counteracts

the venom of the vipers it has eaten by means of the herb marjoram; and

“the serpent heals sore eyes by eating fennel.”[2104]

[Sidenote: Marvels of nature.]

Indeed, far from being led by his acquaintance with Greek science into

doubting the marvelous, Basil finds “in nature a thousand reasons for

believing in the marvelous.”[2105] He is ready to ascribe astounding

powers to animals, and believes, like Pliny, that “the greatest

vessels, sailing with full sails, are easily stopped by a tiny

fish.”[2106] He tells us that nature endowed the lion with such loud

and forceful vocal organs “that often much swifter animals are caught

by his roaring alone.”[2107] He also repeats in charming style the

familiar story of the halcyon days. The halcyon lays its eggs along the

shore in mid-winter when violent winds dash the waves against the land.

Yet winds are hushed and waves are calm during the seven days that the

halcyon sits, and then, after its young are hatched and in need of

food, “God in his munificence grants another seven days to this tiny

animal. All sailors know this and call these days halcyon days.”[2108]

[Sidenote: Spontaneous generation.]

Like most ancient scientists, Basil believes that some animals are

spontaneously generated. “Many birds have no need of union with males

to conceive,” a circumstance which should make it easy for us to

believe in the Virgin birth of Christ.[2109] Grasshoppers and other

nameless insects and sometimes frogs and mice are “born from the earth

itself,” and “mud alone produces eels,”[2110] a theory not much more

amazing than the assertion of modern biologists that eels spawn only in

the Mediterranean Sea. Basil states that “in the environs of Thebes in

Egypt after abundant rain in hot weather the country is covered with

field mice,” but without noting that abundant rain in upper Egypt in

hot weather would itself be in the nature of a miracle.

[Sidenote: Lack of scientific scepticism.]

Basil is less sceptical than Apollonius of Tyana in regard to the

birth of lions and of vipers, repeating unquestioningly the statement

that the viper gnaws its way out of its mother’s womb, and that

the lioness bears only one whelp because it tears her with its

claws.[2111] Of purely scientific scepticism there is, indeed, little

in the _Hexaemeron_. Basil does, however, question one of the powers

ascribed to magicians, and this is his only mention of the magic art.

Discussing the immense size of the moon and its great influence upon

terrestrial nature, he declares ridiculous the old-wives’ tales which

have been circulated everywhere that magic incantations “can remove the

moon from its place and make it descend to the earth.”[2112]

[Sidenote: Sun worship and astrology.]

Sun worship still existed in Basil’s time and he hails the fact that

the sun was not created until the fourth day, after both light and

vegetation were in existence, as a severe blow to those who reverence

the sun as the source of life.[2113] However, he does “not pretend to

be able to separate light from the body of the sun.”[2114] Theophilus

in his earlier discussion of creation had stated, perhaps copying

Philo Judaeus, that the luminaries were not created until the fourth

day, “because God, who possesses foreknowledge, knew the follies of

the vain philosophers, that they were going to say, that the things

which grow on earth are produced from the heavenly bodies”—which is,

indeed, a fundamental hypothesis of astrology—“so as to exclude God.

In order, therefore, that the truth might be obvious, the plants and

seeds were produced prior to the heavenly bodies, for what is posterior

cannot produce that which is prior.”[2115] Basil does not make this

point against the rule of inferior creation by the heavenly bodies,

but in a succeeding homily he feels it necessary to devote several

paragraphs[2116] to refutation of the “vain science” of casting

nativities, which some persons have justified by the words of God

concerning sun, moon, and stars in the first chapter of _Genesis_,

“And let them be for signs.” Basil questions if it be possible to

determine the exact instant of birth, declares that to attribute to the

constellations and signs of the zodiac the characteristics of animals

is to subject them to external influences, and defends human free

will in much the usual fashion. He is ready, however, to grant that

“the variations of the moon do not take place without exerting great

influence upon the organization of animals and of all living things,”

and that the moon makes “all nature participate in her changes.”[2117]

[Sidenote: Permanence of species.]

Basil’s utterances concerning the world of nature are not always

consistent. In describing the creation of vegetation he asserts that

species are unchanging, affirming that “all which sprang from the

earth in the first bringing forth is kept the same to our time, thanks

to the constant reproduction of kind.”[2118] Yet a few paragraphs

later we find him saying, “It has been observed that pines, cut down

or even submitted to the action of fire, are changed into a forest

of oaks.”[2119] Nevertheless in the last homily he again asserts

that “nature, once put in motion by divine command, ... keeps up the

succession of kinds through resemblance to the last. Nature always

makes a horse succeed to a horse, a lion to a lion, an eagle to an

eagle, and preserving each animal by these uninterrupted successions

she transmits it to the end of all things. Animals do not see their

peculiarities destroyed or effaced by any length of time; their nature,

as though it had just been constituted, follows the course of ages

forever young.”[2120]

[Sidenote: Final impression from the _Hexaemeron_.]

Concerning Basil in conclusion we may say that while he can scarcely

be called much of a scientist, he is a pretty good scientist for a

preacher. His knowledge of, and errors concerning, the world of nature

will probably compare quite as well with the science of his day as

those of most modern sermons will with the science of our days. His

occasional flings at Greek philosophy are probably not to be taken too

seriously. But what interests us rather more than Basil’s attitude

is that of his audience, curious concerning nature. Just as it is

evident that many of them go to theaters and circuses, or play with

dice, despite Basil’s denunciation of the immoral songs of the stage

and the evils of gambling; just so, we suspect, it was the attractive

morsels of Greek astronomy, botany, and zoology which he offered them

that induced them to come and listen further to his argument from

design and his moral lessons based upon these natural phenomena. Nor

were they likely to observe his censure of incantations and nativities

more closely than his condemnation of theater and gaming. It would

be rash to infer that they always practiced what he preached. By

the same token, even if the church fathers had opposed scientific

investigation—and it hardly appears that they did—they would probably

have been no more successful in checking it than they were in checking

the commerce of Constantinople, although “S. Ambrose regards the gains

of merchants as for the most part fraudulent, and S. Chrysostom’s

language has been generally appealed to in a similar sense.”[2121]

[Sidenote: _The Medicine Chest_ of Epiphanius.]

The same recognition of an interest in nature on the part of his

audience and the same appeal to their scientific curiosity, which

we have seen in Basil’s sermons, is shown by Epiphanius of Cyprus

(315-403) writing in 374-375 A. D.[2122] He calls his work against

heresies the _Panarion_, or “Medicine Chest,” his idea being to

provide antidotes and healing herbs in the form of salubrious doctrine

against the venom of heretics whose enigmas he compares to the bites

of serpents or wild beasts. This metaphor is more or less adhered to

throughout the work, and particular heresies are compared to the asp,

basilisk, dipsas,[2123] buprestis,[2124] lizard, dog-fish or shark,

mole, centipede, scorpion, and various vipers. We are further told of

substances that drive away serpents, such as the herbs _dictamnon_,

_abrotonum_, and _libanotis_, the gum _storax_,[2125] and the stone

_gagates_. As his authorities in such matters Epiphanius states that he

uses Nicander for the natures of beasts and reptiles, and for roots and

plants Dioscorides, Pamphilus, Mithridates the king, Callisthenes and

Philo, Iolaos the Bithynian, Heraclides of Tarentum, and a number of

other names.[2126]

[Sidenote: Gems in the high priest’s breastplate.]

If in his _Panarion_ Epiphanius makes use of ancient botany, medicine,

and zoology for purposes of comparison, in his treatise on the twelve

gems in the breastplate of the Hebrew high priest[2127] he perhaps

gives an excuse and sets the fashion for the Christian medieval

_Lapidaries_. This work was probably composed after the _Panarion_,

and in the opinion of Fogginius even later than 392 A. D.[2128]

This treatise probably was better known in the middle ages than the

_Panarion_, since the fullest version of it extant is the old Latin

one, while the Greek text which has survived seems only a very brief

epitome. The Greek version, however, embodies a good deal of what

is said concerning the gems themselves and their virtues, but omits

entirely the long effort to identify each of the twelve stones with

one of the twelve tribes of Israel, which is left unfinished even in

the Latin version. Epiphanius shows himself rather chary in regard to

such virtues attributed to gems as to calm storms, make men pacific,

and confer the power of divination. He does not go so far as to omit

them entirely, but he usually qualifies them as the assertion of “those

who construct fables” or “those who believe fables.” It is without any

such qualification, however, that he declares that the topaz,[2129]

when ground on a physician’s grindstone, although red itself, emits a

white milky fluid, and, moreover, that as many vessels as one wishes

may be filled with this fluid without changing the appearance or shape

or lessening the weight of the stone. Skilled physicians also attribute

to this liquid a healing effect in eye troubles, in hydrophobia, and in

the case of those who have gone mad from eating grape-fish.

[Sidenote: Some other gems.]

Epiphanius mentions a few other gems than those in the high priest’s

breastplate. Among these is the stone hyacinth[2130] which, when

placed upon live coals, extinguishes them without injury to itself

and which is also beneficial to women in childbirth, and drives away

phantasms. Certain varieties of it are found in the north among the

barbarous Scythians. The gems lie at the bottom of a deep valley which

is inaccessible to men because walled in completely by mountains, and

moreover from the summits one cannot see into the valley because of a

dark mist which covers it. How men ever became cognizant of the fact

that there are gems there may well be wondered but is a point which

Epiphanius does not take into consideration. He simply tells us that

when men are sent to obtain some of these stones, they skin sheep and

hurl the carcasses into the valley where some of the gems adhere to the

flesh. The odor of the raw meat then attracts the eagles, whose keener

sight is perhaps able to penetrate the mist, although Epiphanius does

not say so, and they carry the carrion to their nests in the mountains.

The men watch where the eagles have taken the meat and go there and

find the gems which have been brought out with it. In the middle ages

we find this same story in a slightly different form told of Alexander

the Great on his expedition to India. Epiphanius has one thing to tell

of India himself in connection with gems, which is that a temple of

Father Liber (Bacchus) is located there which is said to have three

hundred and sixty-five steps,—all of sapphire.[2131]

[Sidenote: The so-called _Physiologus_: problem of its origin.]

The problem of an early Christian work entitled _Physiologus_ is no

easy one, although much has been written concerning it[2132] and more

has been taken for granted. For instance, one often meets such wild

and sweeping statements as that “the name Physiologus” was “given to a

cyclopedia of what was known and imagined about earth, sea, sky, birds,

beasts, and fishes, which for a thousand years was the authoritative

source of information on these matters and was translated into every

European tongue.”[2133] My later treatment of medieval science will

make patent the inaccuracy of such a statement. But to return to the

problem of the origin of Physiologus. The original Greek text,[2134]

which some would put back in the first half of the second century of

our era, if it ever existed, is now lost, and its previous existence

and character are inferred from numerous apparent citations of it,

possible extracts from it, and what are taken to be imitations,

abbreviations, amplifications, adaptations, and translations of it in

other languages and of later date. Thus we have versions or fragments

in Armenian,[2135] Syriac,[2136] Ethiopian,[2137] and Arabic;[2138]

a Greek text from medieval manuscripts, mostly of late date;[2139]

various Latin versions in numerous manuscripts from the eighth century

on;[2140] in Old High German a prose translation of about 1000 A. D.

and a poetical version later in the same language;[2141] and Bestiaries

such as those of Philip of Thaon[2142] and William the Clerk[2143]

in the Romance languages[2144] and other vernaculars.[2145] The

_Physiologus_ has been thought to have originated in Alexandria because

of its use of the Egyptian names for the months and because Clement

of Alexandria and Origen are supposed to have made use of it. But it

is difficult to determine whether the church fathers drew passages

concerning animals and nature from some such work or whether it was a

collection of passages from their writings upon such themes. Ahrens,

who thought he found the original form of the work in a Syriac _Book

of the Things of Nature_,[2146] regarded Origen as its author. In a

medical manuscript at Vienna is a _Physiologus_ in Greek ascribed

to Epiphanius of Cyprus,[2147] of whom we have just been treating,

while we hear that Pope Gelasius at a synod of 496 condemned as

apocryphal a _Physiologus_ which was written by heretics and ascribed

to Ambrose,[2148] who so closely duplicated the _Hexaemeron_ of

Basil. A work on the natures of animals is also attributed to John

Chrysostom.[2149] I am not sure whether a _Physiologus_ ascribed

to John the Scot in a tenth century Latin manuscript is the same

work.[2150]

[Sidenote: Does the title apply to any one particular treatise?]

The _Physiologus_ is commonly described as a symbolic bestiary, in

which the characteristics and properties of animals are accompanied

by Christian allegories and instruction. Some have almost gone so far

as to hold that any passages of this sort are evidence of an author’s

having employed the _Physiologus_, which some have held influenced

the middle ages more than any other book except the Bible. But

Pitra’s point is well taken that the _Physiologus_ is one thing and

the allegorical interpretation thereof another. In the case of the

discordant versions or fragments which he gathered and published from

different manuscripts, centuries, and languages, he noted one common

feature, that the allegorical interpretation was sharply separated

from the extracts from _Physiologus_ and sometimes omitted entirely.

This is what one would naturally expect since a _physiologus_ is a

natural scientist on whose statements concerning this or that the

allegorical interpretation is presumably based and added thereto. But

this suggests another difficulty in identifying _Physiologus_ as a

single work. The abbreviations for the word in medieval manuscripts

are very easily confused with those for philosophers or _phisici_

(physical scientists), and just as medieval writers often cite what

the philosophers say or the _phisici_ say without having reference to

any particular book, so may they not cite what _physiologi_ or even

_physiologus_ says without having any particular writer in mind? In the

_De bestiis_ ascribed to Hugh of St. Victor of the twelfth century

_physici_ are cited[2151] as well as _Physiologus_. When Albertus

Magnus states in the thirteenth century in his work on minerals

that the _physiologi_ have assigned very different causes for the

marvelous occult virtue in stones, he evidently simply alludes to the

opinions of scientists in general and has no such work or works as the

so-called _Physiologus_ in mind.[2152] This is also clearly the case

in a fragment from the introduction to a Latin translation from the

Arabic of some treatise on the astrolabe, in which we find _phisiologi_

cited as astronomical authorities.[2153] Furthermore, even in works

which deal with the natures of animals and which either have the word

_Physiologus_ in their titles or cite it now and then in the course of

their texts, there exists such diversity that it becomes fairly evident

not only that it is impossible to deduce from them the list of animals

treated in the original _Physiologus_ or the details which it gave

concerning each, but also that it is highly probable that the title

_Physiologus_ has been applied to different treatises which did not

necessarily have a common origin. Or at least the greatest liberties

were taken with the original text and title,[2154] so that the word

_Physiologus_ came to apply less to any particular book, author, or

authority than to almost any treatment of animals in a certain style.

[Sidenote: And to what sort of a treatise?]

But of what style? It has too often been assumed that theology

dominated all medieval thought and that natural science was employed

only for purposes of religious symbolism. Of this general assumption

the _Physiologus_ has been seized upon as an apt illustration and

it has been represented as a symbolic bestiary which influenced the

middle ages more than any other book except the Bible[2155] and whose

allegories accounted for the animal sculpture of the Gothic cathedrals

and the strange or familiar beasts in the borders of the Bayeux

Tapestry, the margins of illuminated manuscripts, and so on and so

forth.

[Sidenote: Medieval art shows almost no symbolic influence of the

_Physiologus_.]

The more recent scientific study of medieval art has largely dissipated

this latter notion. It has become evident that in the main medieval

men represented animals in art because they were fond of animals,

not because they were fond of allegories. Their art was natural, not

symbolic. They were, says Mâle, “craftsmen who delighted in nature for

its own sake, sometimes lovingly copying the living forms, sometimes

playing with them, combining and contorting them as they were led by

their own caprice.” St. Bernard, although “the prince of allegorists,”

saw no sense in the animal sculptures in Romanesque cloisters and

inveighed against them. In short, with the exception of the symbols of

the four evangelists, “there are few cases in which it is permissible

to assign symbolic meaning to animal forms,” and it is “evident that

the fauna and flora of medieval art, natural or fantastic, have in

most cases a value that is purely decorative.” “To sum up,” concludes

Mâle, “we are of the opinion that the Bestiaries of which we hear so

much from the archaeologists had no real influence on art until their

substance passed into Honorius of Autun’s book (_Speculum ecclesiae_,

c. 1090-1120) and from that book into sermons. I have searched in vain

(with but two exceptions) for representations of the hedgehog, beaver,

tiger, and other animals which figure in the Bestiaries but which are

not mentioned by Honorius.”[2156]

[Sidenote: Physiologus was more natural scientist than allegorist.]

These assertions concerning medieval art hold true also to a large

extent of medieval literature and medieval science, although they were

perhaps less natural and original than it and more dependent on past

tradition and authority. But medieval men, as we shall see, studied

nature from scientific curiosity and not in search for spiritual

allegories, and even Goldstaub recognizes that by the thirteenth

century the scientific zoology of Aristotle submerged that of the

_Physiologus_ in writers like Thomas of Cantimpré and Albertus Magnus

who, although they may still embody portions of the _Physiologus_,

divest it of its characteristic religious elements.[2157] But were

its characteristic elements ever religious? Were they not always

scientific or pseudo-scientific? Ahrens holds that the title was taken

from Aristotle in the first place, and that Pliny was the chief source

for the contents. The allegories do not appear in such early texts as

the Syriac version or the fragments preserved in the Latin Glossary

of Ansileubus. Not even the introductory scriptural texts appear in

the Greek version ascribed to Epiphanius. Moreover, in the Bestiaries

where the allegorical applications are included, it is for the natures

of the animals, the supposedly scientific facts on which the symbolism

is based, and for these alone that _Physiologus_ is cited in the text.

Thus the symbolism would appear to be somewhat adventitious, while

the pseudo-science is constant. It is obvious that the allegorical

applications cannot do without the supposed facts concerning animals;

on the other hand, the supposedly scientific information can and

does frequently dispense with the allegories. We do not know who was

responsible for the allegorical interpretations in the first instance.

Hommel would carry the origin of their symbolism back of the Christian

era to the animal worship of Persia, India, and Egypt.[2158] But we are

assured over and over again that Natural Scientist or _Physiologus_

vouches for the statements concerning the natures of animals. Thus the

symbolic significance of the literature that has been grouped under the

title _Physiologus_ has been exaggerated, while the respect for and

interest in natural science to which it testifies have too often been

lost sight of.

CHAPTER XXII

AUGUSTINE ON MAGIC AND ASTROLOGY

Date and influence of Augustine—Christianity and magic—Censure of

magic and theurgy as well as _Goetia_—Magic due to demons—Marvels

wrought by magic—Cannot be equalled by most Christians—Miracles of

heretics—Theory of demons—Limitations to the power of magic—Its

fantastic character—Samuel and the witch of Endor—Natural

marvels—Relation between magic and science—Superstitions akin to

magic—Survival of pagan superstition among the laity—Augustine’s

attack upon astrology—Fate and free will—Argument from twins—Defense

of the astrologers—Elections—Are animals and plants under the

stars?—Failure to disprove the control of nature by the stars—Natural

divination and prophetic visions—The star at Christ’s birth—Nature of

the stars—Orosius on the Priscillianists and Origenists—Augustine’s

letter—Attitude toward astronomy—Perfect numbers.

[Sidenote: Date and influence of Augustine.]

The utterances of Augustine concerning magic and astrology have been

reserved for separate treatment in this chapter, partly because of

his late date, 354 to 430 A. D., partly because of the voluminousness

of his writings, but especially because of his approach to and

influence upon the thought of the middle ages. It is, moreover, in

his epoch-making book, _The City of God_, which better than any other

single event marks, or at least sums up, the transition from classical

to medieval civilization, from the life of the ancient city to that of

the medieval church, that he descants with especial fulness upon magic,

demons, and astrology, although he often also refers to these themes

in his other treatises, which we shall cite as well. I separate the

words, magic and astrology, here because Augustine, like most of the

fathers, does so. Of Augustine’s discussion of the Biblical account

of creation in his _Confessions_ and _De Genesi ad litteram_ I shall

not treat, having already presented Basil’s _Hexaemeron_ as an example

of this type of work and of the Christian attitude toward natural

science.[2159] But later in treating of medieval writers on nature I

may have occasion to point out certain passages in which they may have

been influenced by Augustine.

[Sidenote: Christianity and magic.]

Even though writing in the fifth century Augustine still finds it

necessary to defend Christ against those who imagine that He has

converted peoples to Himself by means of the magic art.[2160] And he

tells us of books of magic which are ascribed to Christ Himself or

to the apostles Peter and Paul.[2161] In reply to such charges or

assertions he insists that Christians have nothing to do with magic,

and that their miracles “were wrought by simple confidence and devout

faith, not by incantations and spells compounded by an art of depraved

curiosity.”[2162] And he brings the counter-charge against Roman

religion that King Numa, its founder, learned its secrets and sacred

rites by means of hydromancy or necromancy.[2163] He admits, however,

that condemnation of magic and legislation against it had begun before

Christianity.[2164]

[Sidenote: Magic and theurgy censured as well as _Goetia_.]

Augustine uniformly speaks of magic with censure and several times

adverts to “the crimes of magicians.”[2165] He speaks, however, of

_goetia_ or sorcery as “a more detestable name” than _magia_ and of

“theurgy” as “an honorable name.” He also states that some persons draw

a distinction between the _malefici_ or sorcerers or practitioners of

_goetia_, whom they call truly guilty of illicit arts and deserving

of condemnation, and those who practice theurgy, whom they call

praiseworthy. Porphyry, for instance, had stated that theurgy was

useful to purge the soul and prepare it to receive spirits and to

see God. Augustine, however, holds that in other passages Porphyry

condemned theurgy, and in any case he himself refuses to sanction

it.[2166] He stoutly denies that “souls are purged and reconciled to

God through sacrilegious likenesses and impious curiosity and magic

consecrations.”[2167] Very possibly Augustine would have classed as

improper theurgy some of the use of powerful names described by Origen.

[Sidenote: Magic due to demons.]

At any rate Augustine declares that theurgists and sorcerers alike “are

entangled in the deceitful rites of demons who may masquerade under the

names of angels.”[2168] For it is to demons that Augustine, like most

of our Christian writers, attributes both the origin and the success of

magic. The demons are enticed by men to work marvels, not by offerings

of food, as if they were animals, but by symbols which conform to the

individual taste of each as a spirit, namely, various stones, plants,

trees, animals, incantations, and ceremonies,[2169]—a good brief

summary of the materials and methods of magic. Augustine believes that

the spirits had first to instruct men what rites to perform and by what

names to call them in order to summon them.

[Sidenote: Marvels wrought by magic.]

But when once the demons have revealed their secrets, henceforth the

charms of the magic art have efficacy. Of the marvels worked by means

of magic Augustine has little doubt; to deny them would indeed in his

opinion be to deny the truth of the Scriptures, to whose accounts of

Pharaoh’s magicians,[2170] the witch of Endor, and the Magi and the

star, he adverts many times in his various works. If actors in the

theater and performers in spectacles are able by art and exercise to

display astounding alterations in the appearance of their earthly

bodies, why may not the demons with their aerial bodies produce

marvelous changes in elementary substances or by occult influence

construct phantom images to delude human senses?[2171] Augustine even

grants that the magicians are able to terrify the inferior spirits into

obedience to their commands by adjuring them by the names of superior

spirits, and thereby with divine permission “to exhibit to the eye of

sense certain results which seem great and marvelous to men who through

weakness of the flesh are incapable of beholding things eternal.” He

does not regard this as inconsistent with the assertion of Jesus that

Satan cannot cast out Satan, since while it may be that thus demons are

expelled from sick bodies, the evil one thereby only the more surely

takes possession of the soul.[2172]

[Sidenote: Cannot be equalled by most Christians.]

Augustine further grants that magicians, although stained with crime,

can at present work miracles which most Christians and even most saints

cannot perform. For this, however, he finds Scriptural precedent.

Pharaoh’s magicians performed feats which none of the Children of

Israel could equal except Moses who excelled them by divine aid.

Augustine, like earlier fathers, usually fails to mention Aaron in this

connection.[2173] This superiority of magicians to most Christians

in working marvels Augustine believes is divinely ordained so that

Christians may remain humble and practice works of justice rather than

seek to perform miracles. Magicians seek their own glory; the saints

strive only for the glory of God. And the more marvelous are the feats

of magic, the more Christians should shun them; the greater the power

of the demons, the closer Christians should cling to that Mediator who

alone can raise men from the lowest depths.[2174]

[Sidenote: Miracles of heretics.]

Like Origen, Augustine further distinguishes the miracles wrought by

heretics both from magic and from the miracles of true Christians. He

holds that every soul in part controls itself and exercises as it were

a private jurisdiction, in part is subject to the laws of the universe

just as any citizen is amenable to public jurisdiction. Therefore

magicians perform their marvels by private contracts with demons; good

Christians perform theirs by public justice; bad Christians perform

theirs by the appearance or signs of public justice.[2175] This view

would seem to indicate that God, like the demons, regards the signs

alone and not the character and purpose of the performer, so that

Christian miracles, if they can be duplicated by heretics, would appear

to be largely a matter of procedure and art, like magic.

[Sidenote: Theory of demons.]

For his theory of demons and their characteristics Augustine seems

largely indebted to Apuleius, whom he cites in several chapters of the

eighth and ninth books of _The City of God_. In his separate treatise,

_The Divination of Demons_,[2176] he explains their ability to predict

the future and to perform marvels by the keenness of their sense, their

rapidity of movement, their long experience of nature and life, and

the subtlety of their aerial bodies. This last quality enables them to

penetrate human bodies or affect the thoughts of men without men being

aware of their presence. Augustine, however, of course does not believe

that the world of nature is completely under the control of the demons.

God alone created it and He still governs it, and the demons are able

to do only as much as He permits.[2177]

[Sidenote: Limitations to the power of magic.]

There were, for example, some things which Pharaoh’s magicians could

not do and in which Moses clearly excelled them. They were able to

change their rods into snakes but his snake devoured theirs. How the

magicians got their rods back, if at all, neither Augustine nor the

Book of Exodus informs us. But whether with or without their magic

wands, they were still able to duplicate one or two of the plagues

sent upon Egypt. Augustine explains that neither they nor the demons

who helped them really created snakes and frogs, but that there are

certain seeds of life hidden away in the elemental bodies of this

world of which they made use. But their magic failed them when it came

to the reproduction of minute insects.[2178] Augustine furthermore has

some hesitation about accepting the stories of magic transformations

of men into animals, which he represents as current in his own day as

well as in times past, so that certain female inn-keepers in Italy are

said to transform travelers into beasts of burden by a magic potion

administered in the cheese, just as Circe transformed the companions of

Ulysses and as Apuleius says happened to himself in the book that he

wrote under the title, _The Golden Ass_. These stories, in Augustine’s

opinion, “are either false or such uncommon occurrences that they are

justly discredited.”[2179] He does not believe that demons can truly

transform the human body into the limbs and lineaments of beasts, but

the strange personal experiences of reliable persons have convinced him

that men are deceived by dreams, hallucinations, and fantastic images.

[Sidenote: Its fantastic character.]

Thus, as we have already seen over and over again, the fantastic and

deceptive character of magic is dimly realized. Usually, however, when

Augustine represents “the powers of the air” as deceiving men by magic,

the deceit consists merely in the magicians’ imagining that they are

working the marvels which are really performed by demons, or in men

being lured into subjection to Satan and to their ultimate and eternal

damnation through the attractions of the magic art.[2180]

[Sidenote: Samuel and the witch of Endor.]

Augustine twice responded to questions concerning the witch of Endor’s

apparent invocation of the spirit of Samuel, repeating in his _De octo

Dulcitii quaestionibus_[2181] what he had already said in _De diversis

quaestionibus ad Simplicianum_.[2182] In certain respects Augustine’s

treatment of the problem differs from those which we have previously

examined. What, he asks, if the impure spirit which possessed the

_pythonissa_ was able to raise the very soul of Samuel from the

dead? Is it not much more strange that Satan was allowed to converse

personally with God concerning the tempting of Job, and to raise the

very Christ aloft upon a pinnacle of the temple? Why then may not the

soul of Samuel have appeared to Saul, not unwillingly and coerced by

magic power but voluntarily under some hidden divine dispensation?

Augustine, however, also thinks it possible that the soul of Samuel

did not appear but was impersonated by some phantasm and imaginary

illusion made by diabolical machinations. He can see no deceit in the

Scripture’s calling such a phantom Samuel, since we are accustomed to

call paintings, statues, and images seen in dreams by the names of

the actual persons whom they represent. Nor does it trouble him that

the spirit of Samuel or pretended spirit predicted truly to Saul, for

demons have a limited power of that sort. Thus they recognized Christ

when the Jews knew Him not, and the damsel possessed of a spirit of

divination in _The Acts_ testified to Paul’s divine mission. Augustine

leaves, however, as beyond the limits of his time and strength the

further problem whether the human soul after death can be so evoked

by magic incantations that it is not only seen but recognized by the

living. In his answer to Dulcitius he further calls attention to the

passage in _Ecclesiasticus_ (XLVI, 23) where Samuel is praised as

prophesying from the dead. And if this passage be rejected because

the book is not in the Hebrew canon, what shall we say of Moses who

appeared to the living long after his death?

[Sidenote: Natural marvels.]

Augustine had some acquaintance with ancient natural science and in one

passage rehearses a number of natural marvels which are found in the

pages of Pliny and Solinus in order to show pagans their inconsistency

in accepting such wonders and yet remaining incredulous in regard to

analogous phenomena mentioned in the Bible. So Augustine rehearses the

strange properties of the magnet; asserts that adamant can be broken

neither by steel nor fire but only by application of the blood of a

goat; tells of Cappadocian mares who conceive from the wind; and hails

the ability of the salamander to live in the midst of flames as a token

that the bodies of sinners can subsist in hell fire. Augustine also

admits “the virtue of stones and other objects and the craft of men

who employ these in marvelous ways.”[2183] He denies, however, that

the Marsi who charm snakes by their incantations are really understood

by the serpents. There is some diabolical force behind their magic, as

when Satan spoke to Eve through the serpent.[2184]

[Sidenote: Relation between magic and science.]

Once at least, however, Augustine associates science and magic. In his

_Confessions_, after speaking of sensual pleasure he also censures “the

vain and curious desire of investigation” through the senses, which is

“palliated under the name of knowledge and science.” This is apt to

lead one not only into scrutinizing secrets of nature which are beyond

one and which it does one no good to know and which men want to know

just for the sake of knowledge, but also “into searching through magic

arts into the confines of perverse science.”[2185]

[Sidenote: Superstitions akin to magic.]

Of this dangerous borderland between magic and science Augustine

has more to say in some chapters of his _Christian Doctrine_.[2186]

After mentioning as prime instances of human superstition idolatry,

other false religions, and the magic arts, he next lists the books of

soothsayers (_aruspices_) and augurs as of the same class, “though

seemingly a more permissible vanity.” In his _Confessions_,[2187]

however, he tells of a soothsayer who offered not only to consult

the future for him, but to insure him success in a poetical contest

in which he was to engage in the theater. The incident is a good

illustration of the fact that prediction of the future and attempting

to influence events go naturally together, and that arts of divination

cannot be separated either in theory or practice from magic arts.

In the _Christian Doctrine_ Augustine is inclined further to put in

the same class all use of invocations, incantations, and characters,

which he regards as signs implying pacts with evil spirits, and the

use of which in working cures he asserts is condemned by the medical

profession. He is also suspicious of ligatures and suspensions, and

states that it is one thing to say, “If you drink the juice of this

herb, your stomach will not ache,” and is another thing to say, “If you

suspend this herb from the neck, your stomach will not ache. For in

one case a healing application is worthy of approval, in the other a

superstitious signification is to be censured.” Augustine recognizes,

however, that such ligatures and suspensions are called “by the milder

name of natural remedies (_physica_)”; and if they are applied without

incantations or characters, possibly they may heal the body naturally

by mere attachment, in which case it is lawful to employ them. But they

may involve some signal to demons, in which case the more efficacious

they are, the more a Christian should avoid them.

[Sidenote: Survival of pagan superstition among the laity.]

The same attitude toward superstitious medicine is shown in a sermon

attributed to Augustine but probably spurious.[2188] Here a tempter

is represented as coming to the sick man and saying, “If you had

only employed that enchanter, you would be well now; if you would

attach these characters to your body, you could recover your health.”

Or another comes and says, “Send your girdle to that diviner; he

will measure and scrutinize it and tell you what to do and whether

you can recover.” Or a third visitor may recommend someone who is

skilled in fumigation. The preacher warns his hearers not to succumb

to such advice or they will be sacrificing to the devil; whereas if

they refuse such treatment and die, it will be a glorious martyr’s

death. The preacher, however, is not over-sanguine that his advice

will be heeded, as he has often before admonished his hearers against

pagan superstitions, and yet reports keep coming to him that some

are continuing such practices. He therefore “warns them again and

again” to forsake all diviners, _aruspices_, enchanters, phylacteries,

augury, and observance of days, or they will lose all benefit of the

sacrament of baptism and will be eternally damned unless they perform

a vast amount of penance. The observance of days other than the

Lord’s Day is here condemned on the ground that God made the other

six days without distinction. In another supposititious sermon[2189]

the practice of diligently observing on which day of the week to set

out on a journey is censured as equivalent to worshiping the planets,

or rather the pagan gods whose names they bear and who are said here

to have originally been bad men and women who lived at the time that

the Children of Israel were in Egypt. The preacher is even opposed to

naming the days of the week after such persons or planets and exhorts

his hearers to speak simply of the first day, second day, and so on.

[Sidenote: Augustine’s attack upon astrology.]

Nor will Augustine, to return to his remarks in the _Christian

Doctrine_,[2190] exempt “from this genus of pernicious superstition

those who are called _genethliaci_ from their consideration of natal

days and now are also popularly termed _mathematici_.” He holds

that they enslave human free will by predicting a man’s character

and life from the stars, and that their art is a presumptuous and

fallacious human invention, and that if their predictions come

true, this is due either to chance or to demons who wish to confirm

mankind in its error.[2191] In his youth, when a follower of the

Manichean sect, Augustine had been a believer in astrology and thereby

“sacrificed himself to demons” at the same time that, owing to his

Manichean scruples against animal sacrifice, he refused to employ a

_haruspex_.[2192] Perhaps on this account he felt the more bound to

warn his readers against astrology in his old age. He often attacks

the casters of horoscopes in his works and especially in the opening

chapters of the fifth book of _The City of God_, on which we may

center our attention as being a rather more elaborate discussion than

the other passages and including almost all the arguments which he

advances elsewhere. These arguments are not original with him, but his

presentation of them was perhaps better known in the middle ages than

any other.[2193]

[Sidenote: Fate and free will.]

The objection to astrology as fatalistic does not come with the best

grace from Augustine, the great advocate of divine prescience and

of predestination, and in his discussion in _The City of God_ he is

forced to recognize this fact. He holds that the world is not governed

by chance or by fate, a word which for most men means the force of

the constellations, but by divine providence. He starts to accuse the

astrologers of attributing to the spotless stars, or to the God whose

orders the stars obediently execute, the causing of human sin and evil;

but then recognizes that the astrologers will answer that the stars

simply signify and in no way cause evil, just as God foresees but does

not compel human sinfulness.

[Sidenote: Argument from twins.]

Thus thwarted in his attempt to show that the astrologers enslave the

human will, although in other passages he still gives us to understand

that they do,[2194] Augustine adopts another line of argument, that

from twins, an old favorite, which he twists first one way and then

another, proposing to the astrologers a series of dilemmas as he

finds them likely to escape from each preceding one. He seems to have

been much impressed by the thought that at the same instant and hence

with the same horoscope persons were born whose subsequent lives

and characters were different. He brings forward Esau and Jacob as

examples, and states that he himself has known of twins of dissimilar

sex and life. Moreover, he tells us in his _Confessions_ that he was

finally induced to abandon his study of the books of the astrologers,

from which the arguments of “Vindicianus, a keen old man, and of

Nebridius, a youth of remarkable intellect,” had failed to win him, by

hearing from another youth that his father, a man of wealth and rank,

had been born at precisely the same moment as a certain wretched slave

on the estate.[2195]

[Sidenote: Defense of the astrologers.]

But the astrologers reply that even twins are not born at precisely the

same instant and do not have the same horoscope, but are born under

different constellations, so rapidly do the heavens revolve, as the

astrologer Nigidius Figulus neatly illustrated by striking a rapidly

revolving potter’s wheel two successive blows as quickly as he could

in what appeared to be the same spot. But when the wheel was stopped

and examined, the two marks were found to be far apart. Augustine’s

counter argument is that if astrologers must take into account such

small intervals of time, their observations and predictions can never

attain sufficient accuracy to insure correct prediction; and that

if so brief an instant of time is sufficient to alter the horoscope

totally, then twins should not be as much alike as they are nor have

as much in common as they do,—for instance, falling ill and recovering

simultaneously. To this the astrologers are likely to respond that

twins are alike because conceived at the same instant, but somewhat

dissimilar in their life because of the difference in their times of

birth. Augustine retorts that if two persons conceived simultaneously

in the same womb may be born at different times and have different

fates after birth, he sees no reason why persons who are born of

different mothers at the same instant with the same horoscope may

not die at different dates and lead different lives. But he does

not recognize that very likely the astrologers would agree with him

in this, since they often held that the influence of the stars was

received variously by matter. He also asks why a certain sage is

said to have selected a certain hour for intercourse with his wife in

order to beget a marvelous son—possibly an inaccurate allusion to the

story of Nectanebus[2196]—unless the hour of conception controls the

hour of birth, and consequently twins conceived together must have the

same horoscope. He also objects that if twins fall sick at the same

time because of their simultaneous conception, they should not be of

opposite sex as sometimes happens.

[Sidenote: Elections.]

With this Augustine turns from the case of twins to urge the

inconsistency of the astrological doctrine of elections, suggested by

the story of the sage who chose the favorable moment for intercourse

with his wife. He holds that this practice of choosing favorable times

is inconsistent with the belief in nativities which are supposed to

have determined and predicted the individual’s fate already. He also

inquires why men choose certain days for setting out trees and shrubs

or breeding animals, if men alone are subject to the constellations.

[Sidenote: Are animals and plants under the stars]

This last clause indicates how exclusively Augustine’s attacks are

directed against the prediction of man’s life from the stars, and how

little he has to say regarding the stars’ control of the world of

nature in general. He now goes on to consider this latter possibility,

but interprets it too in the narrow sense of horoscope-casting, and

as implying that every herb and beast must have its fate absolutely

determined by the constellations at its moment of birth. This appears,

however, to have been a widespread belief then, since he tells us that

men are accustomed to test the skill of astrologers by submitting to

them the horoscopes of dumb animals, and that the best astrologers

are able not only to recognize that the reported constellations mark

the birth of a beast rather than that of a human being, but also

to state whether it was a horse, cow, dog, or sheep. Nevertheless,

Augustine feels that he has reduced the art of casting horoscopes to

an absurdity, as he feels sure that beasts and plants which are so

numerous must frequently be born at precisely the same instant as

human beings. Furthermore, it is plain that crops which are sown and

ripen simultaneously meet with very diverse fates in the end. Augustine

thinks that by this argument he will force the astrologers to say that

men alone are subject to the stars, and then he will triumphantly ask

how this can be, when God has endowed man alone of all creatures with

free will. Having thus argued more or less in a circle, Augustine

regains the point from which he had started, or rather, retreated.

[Sidenote: Failure to disprove the control of nature by the stars.]

Augustine cannot then be said to have advanced any telling arguments

against some sort of control of inferior nature by the motions

and influence of the heavenly bodies. He leaves the fundamental

hypothesis of astrology unrebutted. His attention is concentrated

upon genethlialogy, the superstition that the time and place of birth

and nothing else determine with mathematical certainty and mechanical

rigidity the entirety of one’s life. This seems nevertheless to have

been a superstition which was very much alive in his time, which he

felt he must take pains repeatedly to refute, and to which he himself

had once been in bondage. But he could not have studied the books of

the astrologers very deeply, as he ascribes views to them which many of

them did not hold. Also he seems never to have read the _Tetrabiblos_

of Ptolemy. His attack upon and criticism of astrology was therefore

narrow, partial, and inadequate, and did not prevent medieval men

from devoting themselves to that subject, although they might cite

his objections against ascribing to the constellations an influence

subversive of human free will. But he cannot be said to have admitted

the control of the stars over the world of nature. Apparently the most

that he was willing to concede was that it was not absurd to say that

the influence of the stars might produce changes in material things, as

in the varying seasons of the year caused by the sun’s course and the

alternating augmentation and diminution of tides and shell-fish due, as

he supposed, to the moon’s phases. He concludes his discussion of the

subject in _The City of God_ by saying that, all things considered, if

the astrologers make many marvelously true predictions, they do so by

the aid and inspiration of the demons and not by the art of noting and

inspecting horoscopes, which has no sound basis.

[Sidenote: Natural divination and prophetic visions.]

In another work Augustine tells of some young men who, while traveling,

as a boyish prank pretended to be astrologers and either by mere chance

or by natural and innate power of divination hit upon the truth in the

predictions which they supposed that they were inventing. In the same

context he proceeds to discuss in a credulous way the possibility of

marvelous prophetic visions, concerning which he tells one or two other

tall tales from his personal experience. He is, however, doubtful how

far the human soul itself possesses the power of divination, which he

is inclined to attribute rather to spirits, good or bad. But owing to

Satan’s ability in disguising himself as an angel of light it is often

very difficult to tell to which sort of spirit to ascribe the vision in

question.[2197]

[Sidenote: The star at Christ’s birth.]

In Augustine’s time there were those who held that Christ Himself had

been “born under the decree of the stars,” because of the statement in

the Gospel according to Matthew that the Magi had seen His star in the

east. Of this matter Augustine treats in several of his works.[2198]

He denies that this would be true even if other men were subject to

the fatal influence of the stars, which he denies as usual on the

ground of free will. He contends that the star was not one of the

planets or constellations but a special creation, since it did not

keep to a regular course or orbit, but came to where the child lay.

But how did the Magi know that it was the star of Christ when they saw

it in the east, unless by astrology? Augustine can only suggest that

this was revealed to them by spirits, whether good or bad he does not

know.[2199] Augustine further affirms that the star did not cause

Christ to live a marvelous life, but Christ caused the star to make its

marvelous appearance. “For, when born of a mother, He showed earth a

new star in the sky, Who, when born of the Father, formed both heaven

and earth.” And, “when He is born, new light is revealed in a star;

when He dies, old light is veiled in the sun.” But these rhetorical

flourishes and antitheses seem to attest rather than dispute the

significance of celestial phenomena, so that Augustine cannot be said

to have answered the astrological contention anent Christ’s birth very

satisfactorily.

[Sidenote: Nature of the stars.]

The problem of the nature of the stars is one which Augustine

prefers to leave unsolved, although it comes up several times in his

writings.[2200] Whether they are simply lucid bodies without sense or

intelligence, as some think; or have happy intellectual souls of their

own, as Plato taught; whether they are to be classed with the Seats,

Dominions, Principalities, and Powers of whom the apostle speaks; and

whether they are ruled and animated by spirits: all these are questions

which Augustine puts, but concerning whose answers he feels uncertain.

His fullest discussion of the matter is in a letter against the

Priscillianists to which we now come.

[Sidenote: Orosius on the Priscillianists and Origenists.]

An interchange of letters between Augustine and his Spanish

disciple Orosius deals with the error of the Priscillianists and

Origenists.[2201] Nothing is said to convict them of magic, which

was, however, the charge on which Priscillian was put to death,

but astrological tenets are ascribed to them. Orosius states that

Priscillian taught that the soul was born of God and instructed by

angels, but that it descended through certain circles of the heavens

and was caught by evil principalities and thrust into different

bodies; and that it remained subject to _Mathesis_ or the laws of

astrology until Christ set it free by His passion on the cross. Like

the astrologers, continues Orosius, Priscillian associated the signs

of the zodiac with the different members of the human body, Aries and

the head, Taurus and the neck, and so on;[2202] and he also taught that

the names of the patriarchs of the twelve tribes were “members of the

soul,” Reuben in the head, Judah in the breast, Levi in the heart, and

so on. Orosius adds that the Origenists regard the sun, moon, and stars

not as elemental luminaries but as rational powers; and we have seen

that Origen himself did so.

[Sidenote: Augustine’s letter.]